Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Voices of freedom: Samizdat

2004; Routledge; Volume: 56; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/0966813042000220476

1465-3427

Hyung-min Joo,

Historical Geopolitical and Social Dynamics

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes I have benefited greatly from thoughtful comments and lively challenges by Ronald Suny, Lloyd Rudolph and William Sewell. Some sections of an early version of this article were presented at the Russian Studies Workshop at the University of Chicago. I am grateful to its participants, especially Sheila Fitzpatrick and Richard Hellie. My research on samizdat was made possible by generous support from the MacArthur Foundation (CASPIC), the Mellon Foundation, the Institute for Humane Studies and the Institute for the Study of World Politics. Though the writing on Soviet culture in the NEP years is rich and varied, the works of two historians, Richard Stites and Sheila Fitzpatrick, stand out from the rest. For various competing schools exemplifying the experimental spirit of the period see Stites (1989 Suny Ronald, G The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1993b) [Google Scholar]). For a seminal work that defined the field of Soviet policies on culture and education during the NEP period see Fitzpatrick (1970 Fitzpatrick Sheila The Commissariat of Enlightenment: Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts under Lunacharsky (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970) [Google Scholar]). On early Soviet cultural visions see Gleason, Kenez & Stites (1990 Gleason Abbott Kenez Peter Stites Richard Bolshevik Culture: Experiment and Order in the Russian Revolution (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1990) [Google Scholar]) and Geldern (1993 Geldern James von Bolshevik Festivals: 1917–1920 (Berkeley, University of California Press 1992) [Google Scholar]). For literature in the early Soviet years see Gorky (1995 Gorky Maxim Untimely Thoughts: Essays on Revolution, Culture, and the Bolsheviks, 1917–1918 (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1995) [Google Scholar]) and Maguire (1968 Maguire Robert, A Red Virgin Soil: Soviet Literature in the 1920s (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1968) [Google Scholar]). For perceptive works on the Cultural Revolution see Fitzpatrick (1977 Fitzpatrick Sheila Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928–1931 (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1977) [Google Scholar]); Clark (1995 Clark Katerina Petersburg, Crucible of Cultural Revolution (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1995) [Google Scholar]); Rosenberg (1984); and Fitzpatrick (1992 Fitzpatrick Sheila The Cultural Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary Russia, Studies in Soviet History and Society (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1992) [Google Scholar]). For the rise and fall of proletkult see Mally (1990 Mally Lynn Culture of the Future: The Proletkult Movement in Revolutionary Russia (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990) [Google Scholar]). In this period jazz was dealt a particularly harsh blow as it was seen as the manifestation of the corrupt bourgeois spirit. For the fate of jazz in the Soviet period see Starr (1983). For studies on socialist realism see Clark (2000 Clark Katerina The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2000) [Google Scholar]); Fast (1999 Fast Piotr Ideology, Aesthetics, Literary History: Socialist Realism and Its Others, Literary and Cultural Theory 3 (New York, P. Lang, 1999) [Google Scholar]); Gutkin (1999 Gutkin Irina The Cultural Origins of the Socialist Realist Aesthetic, 1890–1934, Studies in Russian Literature and Theory (Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1999) [Google Scholar]); Lahusen (1997 Lahusen Thomas How Life Writes the Book: Real Socialism and Socialist Realism in Stalin's Russia (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1997) [Google Scholar]); Robin (1992); Valkenier (1989 Valkenier Elizabeth Kridl Russian Realist Art: The State and Society, Studies of the Harriman Institute (New York, Columbia University Press, 1989) [Google Scholar]); Bisztray (1978 Bisztray George Marxist Models of Literary Realism (New York, Columbia University Press, 1978) [Google Scholar]); and James (1973 James CV Soviet Socialist Realism: Origins and Theory (London, Macmillan, 1973) [Google Scholar]). It is interesting to note some ‘unofficial’ practices of those working in Glavlit. Since it was the organisation that censored and confiscated unapproved literary materials, Glavlit was also of great interest to those seeking forbidden books and other cultural items. As a result, a crucial nexus formed between some employees of Glavlit and the shadow ‘book’ market. For instance, Andrei Sokolov, who was Deputy Head of Section II of Glavlit and a member of the CPSU, was arrested on 18 January 1975. An investigation revealed that instead of destroying confiscated books, Sokolov had secretly sold them on the shadow market in Moscow for more than 15 years. At the time of his arrest there were 170 bags of illegal books in his apartment. After receiving a sentence of seven years imprisonment, Sokolov lodged an appeal on 14 October 1975 based on the fact that ‘he was not the only one involved in such practices in Glavlit’. A further investigation resulted in the sudden ‘retirement’ of K. Sokontikov, who was Sokolov's superior, though it left some sections of Glavlit ‘without a director for several months’. For more information on this case see Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 2569. In addition to the primary source, two books stand out as secondary works on samizdat: Feldbrugge (1975 Feldbrugge FJM Samizdat and Political Dissent in the Soviet Union (Leyden, A. W. Sijthoff, 1975) [Google Scholar]) and Alexeyeva (1985 Alexeyeva Ludmilla Soviet Dissent: Contemporary Movements for National, Religious, and Human Rights (Middletown, Wesleyan University Press, 1985) [Google Scholar]). While providing detailed analysis of samizdat materials, the work of Feldbrugge is limited in that it does not cover material beyond the early 1970s. By contrast, Alexeyeva, who was an active Soviet dissident, provides an encyclopaedic report of various religious, national and human rights movements from the late 1960s to the mid‐1980s but does not pay enough attention to the actual content of samizdat materials. In spite of this, there is no doubt that I am deeply indebted to these two pioneering works which have made enormous contributions to the field. Though a copy of Arkhiv Samizdata is available in major institutions and libraries, some documents are missing in the copy because the original material is too long or is of such poor quality as to be unreadable. For these ‘missing’ documents, I was greatly assisted by Paul Goble, Director of Communication of RFE/RL, and Virgis Pikturna at the Information Service of RFE/RL. With their help I was able to contact Natasha Zanegina, Senior Archivist at the Open Archive Association in Budapest, who arranged for me to get access to the ‘missing’ documents. I am greatly in debt to them for their invaluable assistance. The best work about ‘nationalism’ during the Soviet experience is Suny (1993 Suny Ronald, G The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1993b) [Google Scholar]b). For nationalism in earlier Soviet periods see Carrere d'Encausse (1991 Carrere d'Encausse Helene The Great Challenge: Nationalities and the Bolshevik State, 1917–1930 (New York, Holmes and Meyer, 1991) [Google Scholar]) and Connor (1984 Connor Walker The National Question in Marxist–Leninist Theory and Strategy (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1984) [Google Scholar]). For a ‘totalitarian’ perspective see Pipes (1954). For works on the Jewish people in the Soviet Union see Gitelman (1972 Gitelman Zvi, Y Jewish Nationality and Soviet Politics: The Jewish Sections of the C.P.S.U. 1917–1930 (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1972) [Google Scholar]) and Pinkus (1988). For Ukrainian nationalism see Armstrong (1963 Armstrong John Ukrainian Nationalism (New York, Cornell University Press, 1963) [Google Scholar]); Reshetar (1952); and Mace (1983 Mace James, E Communism and the Dilemmas of National Liberation: National Communism in Soviet Ukraine, 1918–1933 (Cambridge, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 1983) [Google Scholar]). For works on Transcaucasian nationalism see Suny (1983 Suny Ronald, G Transcaucasia, Nationalism and Social Change: Essays in the History of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (Ann Arbor, Michigan Slavic Publications, 1983) [Google Scholar]) and Kazemzadeh (1951 Kazemzadeh Firuz The Struggle for Transcaucasia, 1917–1921 (New York, Philosophical Library, 1951) [Google Scholar]). For Armenian nationalism see Suny (1993 Suny Ronald, G Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1993a) [Google Scholar]a) and Hovannisian (1967 Hovannisian Richard, G Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967) [Google Scholar]). For Azerbaijan nationalism see Swietochowski (1985 Swietochowski Tadeusz Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985) [Google Scholar]) and Altstadt (1992 Altstadt Audrey, L The Azerbaijan Turks: Power and Identity under Russian Rule (Stanford, Hoover Institution Press, 1992) [Google Scholar]). Finally, for Georgian nationalism see Suny (1988 Suny Ronald, G The Making of the Georgian Nation, Studies of Nationalities in the U.S.S.R (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1988) [Google Scholar]). For nationalism in the Baltic region see Rauch (1974 Rauch Georg von The Baltic States: The Years of Independence, 1917–1940 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1974) [Google Scholar]); Senn (1959); Raun (1987); and Plakans (1995). The best work that deals with religious as well as national dissent in the Soviet Union is Alexeyeva (1985 Alexeyeva Ludmilla Soviet Dissent: Contemporary Movements for National, Religious, and Human Rights (Middletown, Wesleyan University Press, 1985) [Google Scholar]). As a side note, an interesting ‘hole’ in her work is that Catholics, who were quite active in samizdat, were not included in the religious section of her book, which did, however, cover Orthodox and various Protestant sects. For some works on religion see Noble (1959); Kolarz (1961 Kolarz Walter Religion in the Soviet Union (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1961) [Google Scholar]); Fletcher (1965 Fletcher William, C A Study in Survival: The Church in Russia, 1917–1943 (New York, Macmillan, 1965) [Google Scholar]); George (1970 George Father God's Underground (St. Louis, Bethany Press, 1970) [Google Scholar]); Fletcher (1971 Fletcher William, C The Russian Orthodox Church Underground, 1917–1970 (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1971) [Google Scholar]); and Bissonette (1956 Bissonette Georges Moscow Was My Parish (New York, McGraw‐Hill, 1956) [Google Scholar]). Though rare, there are some ‘ancient’ materials in the collection. For instance, Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 1179 was written in 1884, Doc. No. 1150 in 1922, Doc. No. 1340 in 1922, Doc. No. 1341 in 1923, Doc. No. 1369 in the mid‐1930s and Doc. No. 376 in 1939. Also, there was one article written in 1950, another in 1953, three in 1956, three in 1957, two in 1958, six in 1959, 14 in 1960, six in 1961, five in 1962, 15 in 1963, 32 in 1964 and 49 in 1965. Different ‘labels’ have been used to categorise the main currents of samizdat. For instance, Feldbrugge (1975 Feldbrugge FJM Samizdat and Political Dissent in the Soviet Union (Leyden, A. W. Sijthoff, 1975) [Google Scholar]) uses ‘communists, socialists, democrats and nationalists’ while Alexeyeva (1985 Alexeyeva Ludmilla Soviet Dissent: Contemporary Movements for National, Religious, and Human Rights (Middletown, Wesleyan University Press, 1985) [Google Scholar]) uses ‘socialists, human rights activists and Russian nationals’. Probably the most distinctive alternative was suggested by the leading socialist dissident Roi Medvedev, who divides the samizdat phenomenon into four groups: ‘Westernisers, ethical socialists, Christian socialists and legalists’ (see Medvedev (1977 Medvedev Roy, A Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1971) [Google Scholar]), pp. 66–82). In the collection of Arkhiv Samizdata, Let History Judge is listed as Doc. No. 1060 and On Socialist Democracy is listed as Doc. No. 1170. In addition to these influential books, Medvedev wrote numerous articles in samizdat. To name a few important ones, he wrote about the rehabilitation of Stalin (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 131), the Jewish Question in Soviet society (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 496) and the failure of détente (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 2052). After his brother Zhores Medvedev was imprisoned in a mental hospital he discussed the issue of forced hospitalisation of dissidents (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 658, 1016 and 1265). Medvedev also wrote several reviews of The Gulag Archipelago (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 1590, 1998 and 2669). There is an interesting episode regarding Roi Medvedev. In 1968 an article titled ‘The truth about the present day’ was circulated in samizdat under his name (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 306). In a personal letter to Posev on 25 March 1970, however, he denied authorship of that particular article. In fact, a close reading of the article reveals that it was indeed not written by Medvedev, though it reflected some of his basic principles such as attacking Stalinism and calling for a return to Marxism. In spite of such similarities, there were some crucial arguments in the article that contradicted Medvedev's ideas. Most important of all, the October Revolution—the Holy Grail for Medvedev—was significantly devalued as ‘a bourgeois revolution’ that had produced ‘state capitalism’. Instead, the grass‐roots democracy of ‘the Paris Commune’ was regarded as the ideal for all spheres of life, including even the army and the police. At this point, the divergence from Medvedev was quite obvious (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 306). Unlike democrats and Slavophiles, who completely rejected the socialist project, ‘socialist’ dissidents had the burden of proof to show that there was still hope for socialism despite the distortion of Stalinism. That is, they had to demonstrate that socialism without Stalinism was not only possible but also desirable. In their efforts to deal with the dark past, some emphasised ‘the ignorance factor’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 116 and 124) while others focused on ‘historical necessity’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 547). In addition, some pointed out ‘personal’ qualities of Stalinists (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 109 and 132) while others went in the opposite direction to emphasise the ‘impersonal’ characteristics of Stalinism (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 109 and 116). Also, some true believers blamed faulty ‘principles’ for the Stalin phenomenon (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 124) while others thought that it was predicated upon ‘social conditions’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 547). In spite of such diverse views, most socialists shared the fundamental view that Stalinism should be expunged from the Soviet system. As a result, ‘no statue of Stalin should ever stand near the mausoleum of Lenin’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 418). Obviously, some socialists displayed a profound mistrust or even contempt for ‘men on the street’. They believed that any bright future could easily be ruined by the contemporary Soviet people, who were either ‘ignorant’ like ‘an old woman adding sticks to set fire to Jan Hus’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 48 and 1480) or ‘corrupt’, so that ‘only a parody of communism was possible’ with them (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 166). As a result, many socialists concluded that ‘Russia was waiting for new people’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 80). In contrast to these ‘radical’ voices there was widespread agreement among socialists that any struggle for their ideals should adopt only peaceful means. In this respect the articles collected in ‘Socialists–82’ by a writer with the pseudonym M. Bolkhovskoi were exemplary. After a careful analysis of ‘ideas of non‐violence’, ‘Socialists—82’ concluded that ‘a more noble means of revolution was represented by Gandhi and King’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 4769). Evgenii S. Varga, often known as Eugene Varga in the West, was born in Hungary in 1879. Although he briefly worked in the Hungarian Communist government, he became a member of the CPSU when he came to Moscow in 1920. Recognised for his expertise in economics, Varga became the Chief of the Institute of World Economy and Politics in 1927 and a member of the Academy of Sciences in 1939. In the final years under Stalin, however, Varga was disgraced for his ‘non‐Marxist’ views. Under the Khrushchev administration Varga's fortunes were reversed as he was not only rehabilitated but also received the Order of Lenin in 1954. In spite of this, Varga kept developing his ‘non‐Marxist’ views. For his earlier works see Varga (1935 Varga Eugene The Great Crisis and Its Political Consequences: Economics and Politics, 1928–1934 (New York, International Publishers, 1935) [Google Scholar] and 1939); for his later works see Varga (1962 Varga Eugene 20th Century Capitalism (London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1962) [Google Scholar] and 1968). The so‐called ‘Varga Testament’ was the last piece he wrote for samizdat before he died in 1964. It was originally published in the underground journal Phoenix‐66, which was edited by the famous dissident Yu. Galanskov (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 25). Unlike earlier socialist dissidents, socialists of the 1980s elaborated their ideas increasingly along non‐Bolshevik lines. That is, other socialist ideals such as Eurocommunism (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 4769) and Menshevism (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 4451) were explored by socialists of the 1980s. At this point it is clear that even those few who kept faith in socialism made a substantial retreat from their earlier position. That is, it was no longer a case of ‘Leninism Yes, Stalinism No’. Instead, it was time to say ‘no’ to Leninism itself, thus further distancing themselves from the official ideology. Such was the ideological orientation of socialists in their twilight. Interestingly, there was a new breed of socialists—mostly workers—that appeared in the late 1970s. Unlike most dissidents, these worker‐socialists were not interested in the fundamental reform of the Soviet system. Instead, their goal was to pursue specific rights such as ‘free’ trade unions. For their earlier efforts see Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 3191, 3193, 3194 and 3215. After an initial failure, a new group called SMOT (Free Inter‐Trade Union of Workers) appeared and pushed for a free trade union throughout the 1980s. For more information on SMOT, see Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 3512, 3513, 3516, 3669, 3674, 3842, 3911, 3935, 4293, 4370, 4527, 4578, 4579, 4621, 4622, 4626, 4628, 4692, 4711, 4728, 4729, 4752, 4760, 4780, 4806, 4824, 4856, 4857, 5061, 5127 and 5128. Owing to their lack of interest in a ‘reform’ programme free trade union activists were often regarded as ‘not dissidents in the usual sense of the word’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 3680). In fact, they were eager to distance themselves from socialist dissidents because they had ‘nothing in common with them’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 4130). Anatolii Marchenko was put in prison after his unsuccessful attempt to cross the border. After six years in a Mordovia camp, in 1968 Marchenko wrote My Testimony based on his personal experience (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 106). He also issued public statements to Literaturnaya gazeta and the Red Cross about horrible ‘nutritional’ norms in labour camps (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 119 and 120). As one of the first samizdat items that provided information about the real conditions of political prisoners, it provoked a sensational response among dissidents in the late 1960s and early 1970s. On 22 July 1968 Marchenko wrote a letter that predicted ‘the possible intervention of our troops’ in Czechoslovakia (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 36). A week later he was arrested and sentenced to imprisonment (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 37, 38, 78, 138 and 302). In this way his career as ‘the perpetual prisoner’ began. After serving his second prison term, Marchenko was briefly released in the early 1970s. In 1974, however, he was interrogated by the KGB for ‘Case No. 24’ of Khronika (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 1607). Shortly thereafter, Marchenko was arrested, put on trial, sentenced to prison and exiled to Chuna in Irkutsk oblast' in 1975 (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 2103, 2137, 2404, 2339 and 2852). At this time two documents appeared which described the life of Marchenko from 1966 to 1975—one by Marchenko himself (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 2403) and the other as an anonymous collection (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 2405). The continuing repression was apparently not able to silence him. A year later, in 1976, Marchenko became one of the founding members of the Helsinki Group (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 2542). Again, the price of his relentless courage was loss of freedom. On 22 March 1981 Marchenko was arrested again in the heat of repression against the Helsinki Group, provoking a series of appeals to save him (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. Nos. 4273, 4341, 4431, 4646, 4489, 4491, 4518 and 4519). While in captivity, Marchenko kept active by publishing samizdat materials about political prisoners in Perm (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 5121 and 5411). Indeed, the story of Marchenko showed why repression was ‘senseless’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 4341). The enormous respect that Marchenko earned from dissidents was well expressed in a moving samizdat article which predicted that a Marchenko Street would replace Lenin Street when the Soviet Union was finally chased into the dustbin of history (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 4335). Without doubt, the Democratic Movement (DDSS) constituted one of the most interesting moments in the history of samizdat. For instance, the Soldatov group argued for ‘a moral rebirth of our society’ in spite of ‘conspiratorial’ strategies (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 70). Also, it had one of the most sympathetic understandings of capitalism. For instance, the evil of ‘unemployment’ was such that the majority of the unemployed in the West had ‘their own cars’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 340). In addition, the Soldatov group accused the CPSU of high treason because it had usurped power from the Supreme Soviet as the highest elected authority (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 602). The ideal state of the Soldatov group was a Western‐type liberal democracy based on a mixed capitalist economy. The new state should have a new capital, a new state emblem and a new national anthem in order to avoid projecting a predominantly Russian identity. For instance, Moscow should not be the new capital since ‘it symbolises Russia’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 602). Finally, democrats should ‘maintain a neutral position’ in the event of war breaking out between the Soviet Union and China, just ‘as Lenin did in 1914’ (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 1152‐d). Interestingly, the Democratic Movement (DDSS) was criticised from all possible directions: by various national groups, Slavophiles, socialists and even democrats. In addition, these ‘voices of disbelief, doubt and objection’ echoed in the very columns of its journal Demokrat No. 6 (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 1152‐e). As Feldbrugge (1975 Feldbrugge FJM Samizdat and Political Dissent in the Soviet Union (Leyden, A. W. Sijthoff, 1975) [Google Scholar], p. 135) pointed out, this was ‘a sign of strength and responsibility’. Would it be an ‘overinterpretation’ if we read more than that into this? In a nutshell, the Soldatov group was criticised for being too Russian by various national groups but not Russian enough by Slavophiles; for being too democratic by socialist dissidents but not democratic enough by some democrats. Brought together into a single space, however, these criticisms became more or less muffled as they canceled each other out, losing much of their persuasive potential as well as narrative merit. In this way the Democratic Movement implicitly highlighted the subjective biases of diverse ideological groups in the Soviet dissident movement. Perhaps this was its best defence against the angry voices of critics coming from all directions. Also, perhaps this was the main point it had been trying to make from the very beginning—that a genuine democracy, if Soviet society was ever to bring one about, required flexibility and tolerance. For the issue of ‘overinterpretation’ see Eco, Rorty, Culler & Brooke‐Rose (1992 Eco Umberto Rorty Richard Culler Jonathan Brooke‐Rose Christine Interpretation and Overinterpretation (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992) [Google Scholar]). In addition to Slavophiles, Solzhenitsyn received some unexpected support from Agursky, an active member of the Jewish emigration movement. Why did a Jewish activist support the distinctively Russian programme of Solzhenitsyn? Agursky had some ‘practical’ reasons. At this period there was ‘an intensification of neo‐Nazi danger’ in the Soviet Union. The chauvinistic works of A. (Skuratov) Ivanov and G. Shimanov were ‘only the tip of a huge neo‐Nazi iceberg swimming unhindered in the Soviet Union’. Under such circumstances Agursky did not view Solzhenitsyn's programme as an extreme form of Russian nationalism. Instead, he saw it as a ‘humanistic’ programme for the Jewish people. As a result, Agursky supported Solzhenitsyn as the lesser of two evils (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 1858). It goes without saying that the idea of a ‘national’ dictatorship was widely rejected by most Slavophiles, let alone socialists and democrats. Perhaps it was V. Gusarov who provided the most thorough, yet humorous and sarcastic, criticism of what he called ‘Russian Nazism’. In particular, he could not understand how anyone in his right mind could believe in ‘the purity of Russian blood’. In his words, ‘God knows what happened to that pure blood during 300 years under the Tartar yoke’. Moreover, ‘as for pre‐historical times—that vast period—not even God would be able to guess’. When Gusarov looked at his own ‘Russian’ family, he was not able to find any ‘pure blood’. For instance, ‘my uncle has two daughters: one blonde and one brunette’. The latter married into a Jewish family ‘which did not notice her origin’. In fact, during the last years of Stalin, when anti‐Semitism ran high, ‘the security organs gave her a hard time’ because she was suspected of having Jewish origins. Also, ‘my son has on his mother’s side an Armenian grandfather and a grandmother who is half‐Polish and half‐Ukrainian'. Such was the reality of ‘pure blood’ in Russia. Under such circumstances the only thing ‘Russian Nazism’ could do was ‘to drag us back to the past’. As a result, it was necessary to struggle against the danger of neo‐Nazism in Russia. Otherwise, ‘Russia itself is useless’ (to ne nuzhno nikakoi Rossii); what mattered was not Russia itself but what it stood for (Arkhiv Samizdata, Doc. No. 688).