Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:23:07.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who are the “Enemies of Russia”? The Question of Russophobia in the Samizdat Debate Before Glasnost'

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Julia Brun-Zejmis
Julia Brun-Zejmis*
Affiliation:
Lincoln University, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Communist system has forced the Russian people into a state of sulking introspection which seeks outlets in xenophobia, petulant demonstrations of national superiority—or, at the opposite end, maudlin admissions of national inferiority.

Milovan Djilas

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 169 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Association for the Study of Nationalities of Eastern Europe and ex-USSR, Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. “Djilas on Gorbachov (II),” Encounter, Vol. LXXI, No. 4, November 1988, p. 30.Google Scholar

2. Igor' Shafarevich, “Rusofobiia,” Nash sovremennik, No. 6, June 1989, pp. 167–192.Google Scholar

3. The xerox copies of Shafarevich's article have been widely circulated among the Russian population (Bill Keller, “Russian Nationalists: Yearning for an Iron Hand,” The New York Times Magazine, 28 January 1990, p. 46.).Google Scholar

4. “Russian Nationalism and Russophobia,” Meeting Report, Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies, 9 January 1990.Google Scholar

5. A recent opinion poll, taken in December 1988 by the All–Union Centre of Public Opinion and published in Moscow News, demonstrated Shafarevich-like intolerance by the Russian population toward those perceived as socially undesirable. Seventy percent approved of the death penalty for criminals, while thirty-three percent supported the “liquidation” of prostitutes, drug addicts and homosexuals. Twenty-two percent demanded death for rockers, AIDS victims and the handicapped. Nine percent wanted to wipe out even beggars and alcoholics (“Homo Sovieticus: A Rough Sketch,” Moscow News, No. 11, 25 March–1 April 1990, p. 11.).Google Scholar

6. Glazov, Yuri, The Russian Mind Since Stalin's Death (Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985), p. 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Belotserkovsky, Vadim, “The Russian Nationalist Opposition,” Partisan Review, No. 1, 1980, p. 50.Google Scholar

8. Dunlop, John, The Faces of Contemporary Russian Nationalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 43.Google Scholar

9. Compare Abram Tertz (Andrei Sinyavsky), On Socialist Realism , trans. Dennis, George (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982), p. 217; and Vladimir Osipov, Tri otnosheniia k rodine (Frankfurt/Main: Possev–Verlag, 1978), p. 57.Google Scholar

10. According to Dunlop, John, Ogurtsov, Igor' and Sado, Mikhail, the leaders of VSKhSON, lost their hopes for Khrushchev's reforms and in early 1964, therefore, they decided to form their own revolutionary organization (John Dunlop, The New Russian Revolutionaries [Belmont, Mass: Nordland, 1976], p. 28). The authors of the Program of the Democratic Movement also expressed their disillusionment with the “Eastern type” of Socialism (Programma demokraticheskogo dvizheniia Sovetskogo Soiuza [Amsterdam: Alexander Herzen Foundation, 1970], p. 13). Compare, also, Boris Shragin, The Challenge of the Spirit, trans. P. S. Falla (New York: Alfred A. Knopff, 1978), p. 56.Google Scholar

11. Abram Tertz (Andrei Sinyavsky), On Socialist Realism (New York: Pantheon Books Inc., 1960).Google Scholar

12. Tertz, Abram (Andrei Sinyavsky), On Socialist Realism, trans. George Dennis (Berkeley and Los Angelos: University of California Press, 1982), p. 161.Google Scholar

13. Ibid., p. 163.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., p. 183.Google Scholar

15. Ibid., p. 217.Google Scholar

16. In his article, “Sny na pravoslavnyiu paskhu,” Siniavskii described the human rights movement as the new “higher purpose” of the Soviet intelligentsia (Andrei Siniavskii, “Sny na pravoslavnyiu paskhu,” Sintaksis, No. 8, 1980, p. 10).Google Scholar

17. Volny, K., “The Intelligentsia and the Democratic Movement,” Survey, Vol. 17, No. 3, Summer 1971, p. 186.Google Scholar

18. Glazov, Yuri, The Russian Mind, p. 96.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., p. 234.Google Scholar

20. Volny, K., p. 181.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., p. 188.Google Scholar

22. Altaev, O., “The Dual Consciousness of the Intelligentsia and Pseudo-Culture,” in Michael Meerson-Aksenov, Boris Shragin, eds, The Political, Social and Religious Thought of Russian “Samizdat”—An Anthology (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Co., 1977) (hereafter cited as An Anthology), pp. 116-147. In Russian, O. Altaev, “Dvoinoe soznanie intelligentsii i psevdo-kul'tura,” Vestnik R. Kh. D., No. 97, 1970, pp. 8–32.Google Scholar

23. Metanoia in Vestnik R. Kh. D. , No. 97, 1970, pp. 4–80.Google Scholar

24. An Anthology, p. 130.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., p. 131.Google Scholar

26. Ibid. Google Scholar

27. Ibid., p. 134. Compare Grigorii Pomerants's description of Soviet “Smerdiakovs” in Grigorii Pomerants, Neopublikovannoe (Frankfurt/Main: Possev-Verlag, 1972), pp. 102–104.Google Scholar

28. Nelidov, Dmitrii, “Ideocratic Consciousness and Personality” in An Anthology, pp. 256–290.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., p. 281.Google Scholar

30. Shragin, Boris, The Challenge of the Spirit.Google Scholar

31. Ibid., p. 145.Google Scholar

32. Amal'rik, Andrei, Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1971), p. 19.Google Scholar

33. Glazov, Yuri, The Russian Mind, p. 59.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., p. 75.Google Scholar

35. Ibid., p. 46.Google Scholar

36. Lev Ventsov (Boris Shragin), “To Think,” in An Anthology , p. 151.Google Scholar

37. Pomerants, Grigorii, “Chelovek niotkuda” in Neopublikovannoe , pp. 123-175.Google Scholar

38. Ibid., p. 161, trans. Julia Brun-Zejmis (hereafter all excerpts quoted in English trans. by J. B–Z, unless stated otherwise).Google Scholar

39. Glazov, Yuri, The Russian Mind, p. 229.Google Scholar

40. Pomerants, Grigorii, Neopublikovannoe, p. 120.Google Scholar

41. Amal'rik, Andrei, Will the Soviet Union, p. 35. Compare Yuri Glazov, The Russian Mind , p. 97.Google Scholar

42. Volny, K., p. 189.Google Scholar

43. Gorskii, V., “Russian Messianism and the New National Consciousness” in An Anthology, p. 316. In Russian, V. Gorskii, “Russkii messianism i natsional'noe soznanie,” Vestnik R. Kh. D., No. 97, 1970, pp. 33–68.Google Scholar

44. Pomerants, Grigorii, Neopublikovannoe, p. 153.Google Scholar

45. Glazov, Yuri, The Russian Mind, p. 59.Google Scholar

46. Amal'rik, Andrei, Will the Soviet Union, p. 35.Google Scholar

47. Ibid., p. 29.Google Scholar

48. Ibid., p. 34.Google Scholar

49. Ibid., p. 58.Google Scholar

50. Ibid., p. 34.Google Scholar

51. Ibid., p. 38.Google Scholar

52. Pomerants, Grigorii, Sny zemli (Paris: Poiski, 1984).Google Scholar

53. Ibid., p. 51. Boris Shragin pointed to the Asiatic roots of Russian civilization as an obstacle to Russia's Westernization. In his book, The Challenge of the Spirit, he wrote: “Being part-Asiatic and part-European, Russia had to adopt certain features of Western civilization, but she did so in order to combat that civilization and prevent herself from being Europeanized,” Boris Shragin, The Challenge of the Spirit, p. 215.Google Scholar

54. Quoted after Zhitnikov, K., “The Decline of the ’Democratic Movement‘” in An Anthology, p. 249.Google Scholar

55. Ibid. Google Scholar

56. Grossman, Vasilii, Vse techet (Frankfurt/Main: Possev–Verlag, 1970).Google Scholar

57. Ibid., p. 179.Google Scholar

58. Ibid., pp. 178–179.Google Scholar

59. Gorskii, V., “Russian Messianism,” p. 382.Google Scholar

60. Ibid., p. 354.Google Scholar

61. See the chapter by Meerson-Aksenov, Michael, “The Influence of the Orthodox Church on Russian Ethnic Identity,” in Edward Allworth, ed., Ethnic Russia in the USSR, The Dilemma of Dominance (New York: Pergamin Press Inc., 1980), pp. 105–115.Google Scholar

62. See the chapter by Barghoorn, Frederick C., “Soviet Chauvinism and Messianism,” in Frederick C. Barghoorn, ed., Soviet Russian Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 231–262.Google Scholar

63. Gorskii, V., “Russian Messianism,” p. 386.Google Scholar

64. Programma demokraticheskogo dvizheniia Sovetskogo Soiuza.Google Scholar

65. Ibid., p. 45.Google Scholar

66. Ibid., p. 47.Google Scholar

67. “Stat'ia Aleksandra Ivanova k 90-letiiu I. V. Stalina,” in Roy Medvedev, ed., Politicheskii dnevnik (Amsterdam: Alexander Herzen Foundation, 1972), Vol. I, pp. 589–594.Google Scholar

68. Ibid., p. 592.Google Scholar

69. “Ideinyi razbrod, ideinye iskaniia-Pis'mo sovetskogo zhurnalista,” Posev, No. 9, September 1969, pp. 42–46.Google Scholar

70. Ibid., p. 42.Google Scholar

71. Ladov, L., “Neskol'ko myslei o Rossii sprovotsirovannykh sovremennymi ‘slavianofilami’,” Sintaksis, No. 2, 1978, p. 22.Google Scholar

72. Glazov, Iurii, Tesnye vrata (London: Overseas Publications Interexchange Ltd, 1973), p. 7.Google Scholar

73. Abram Terts (Andrei Siniavskii), Mysli vrasplokh (München: Echo-Press, 1986), p. 42.Google Scholar

74. Amal'rik, Andrei, Will the Soviet Union, p. 58.Google Scholar

75. Denisov, I., “Slovo otstupnikov,” Arkhiv Samizdata, No. 1061, p. 4.Google Scholar

76. “Otkrytoe pis'mo predsedateliu Soveta ministrov Kosyginu” in “Chetyre tochki zreniia,” Posev, No. 2, February 1976, p. 45. Also in Arkhiv Samizdata, No. 2364, p. 2.Google Scholar

77. Programma demokraticheskogo dvizheniia, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

78. Metanoia, p. 6.Google Scholar

79. “Ideinyi razbrod-ideinye iskaniia,” p. 42.Google Scholar

80. Chelnov, M., “Kak byt'?” in Metanoia , p. 76.Google Scholar

81. Gorskii, V., “Russian Messianism,” pp. 388–389.Google Scholar

82. Amal'rik, Andrei, Will the Soviet Union, p. 64.Google Scholar

83. Gorskii, V., “Russian Messianism,” p. 393.Google Scholar

84. Programma demokraticheskogo dvizheniia, p. 54.Google Scholar

85. Ibid., p. 75.Google Scholar

86. “A Word to the Nation,” Survey , Vol. 16, No. 1, Winter 1971, pp. 191-199. The Veche editorial article entitled “‘Survey’ o russkom natsionalizme,” pointed out that “A Word to the Nation (Slovo natsii)” was written in response to part of the “anti-Russian” Program of the Democratic Movement (Arkhiv Samizdata, No. 2040, [Veche, No. 9], pp. 171-172).Google Scholar

87. “A Word to the Nation,” p. 196.Google Scholar

88. Ibid., p. 199.Google Scholar

89. Osipov, Vladimir, “Bor'ba s tak nazyvaemym russofil'stvom, ili put' gosudarstvennogo samoubiitsva” in Tri otnosheniia k rodine , p. 120. As a former democratic dissident and a man praising himself to be a Christian of high moral standards (compare Peter J. S. Duncan, “The Fate of Russian Nationalism: The Samizdat Journal Veche Revisited,” Religion in Communist Lands, Vol. 16, No. 1, Spring 1988, pp. 36–53), Osipov probably would never have openly subscribed to the racist ideology of “A Word to the Nation.” Nevertheless, some of his statements betrayed certain chauvinistic and even racist overtones. For example, in support of his idea about the need for a centralized state under Russian hegemony, Osipov emphasized special inborn qualities of the Russian national character and the Russian psyche. “Due to its psychological makeup,” he wrote, “the Russian nation, like no other, is capable of forming the center of a voluntary union” (p. 116). According to Osipov, the historical Russian Empire, inherited by the Soviet Union, consisted of several smaller nations which voluntarily sought Russia's protection and guidance inspired by her love and respect for other nations' cultures. “Russia was able to inspire love for herself,” he wrote, “and in this lies the secret of her might” (p. 120). In Osipov's view, Russia should set a moral example of healthy national development in order to prevent other nations from seceding.Google Scholar

90. Ibid., p. 147.Google Scholar

91. Shimanov, Genadii, “Vtoroe otkrytoe pis'mo N. A. Struve, redaktoru zhurnala Vestnik R. Kh. D. ,” Vestnik R. Kh. D., No. 104–105, p. 320.Google Scholar

92. Ibragimov, L., “Po povodu sbornika statei, posviashchennykh sud'bam Rossii, opublikovannogo v no. 97 zhurnala Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia, Vestnik R. Kh. D. , No. 106, p. 311.Google Scholar

93. Radugin, K., “Budi sie, budi!” Vestnik R. Kh. D. , No. 106, p. 319.Google Scholar

94. Prokhorov, V., “Otkrytoe pis'mo v redaktsiiu zhurnala Vestnik R. Kh. D. , No. 106, p. 308.Google Scholar

95. In his press conference in Zurich (November 16, 1974) Alexander Solzhenitsyn stated that his article, “Raskaianie i samoogranicheniie kak kategorii natsional'noi zhizni” (Iz-pod glyb, Moskva, 1974, [Paris: YMCA-Press, 1974], pp. 115–250), was directed against the authors of Metanoia. See Dve press-konferentsii k sborniku “Iz-pod glyb” (Paris: YMCA Press, 1974), p. 50. For Solzhenitsyn's comments on Metanoia see also Vestnik R. Kh. D., No. 111, 1974, p. 7.Google Scholar

96. Osipov, Vladimir, “Three Attitudes Toward the Homeland” in An Anthology , p. 394. In Russian, Vladimir Osipov, Tri otnosheniia k rodine , pp. 25–34.Google Scholar

97. Ibid., p. 395.Google Scholar

98. Ibid. Google Scholar

99. Ibid., p. 397.Google Scholar

100. “Mysli-prozhektory” in Arkhiv Samizdata, No. 1020 (Veche, No. 2), p. 30.Google Scholar

101. Ibid., p. 28.Google Scholar

102. Ibid., p. 29.Google Scholar

103. Osipov, Vladimir, “Pis'mo v redaktsiiu zhurnala ’Vestnik R. Kh. D‘,” Vestnik R. Kh. D., No. 106, p. 295.Google Scholar

104. Osipov, Vladimir, Tri otnosheniia k rodine, p. 203.Google Scholar

105. Samizdata, Arkhiv, No. 1140 (Veche, No. 4), p. 132.Google Scholar

106. “Otryvki iz dnevnika” in Arkhiv Samizdata, No. 1140 (Veche, No. 4), p. 43. Compare I. Starozhubaev, “Neskol'ko slov po povodu” in Arkhiv Samizdata, No. 1775 (Veche, No. 7), p. 78. Mikhail Agurskii, a contributor to Solzhenitsyn's collection Iz-pod glyb, recognized defensive patriotism as a legitimate expression of Russian national protest and general recognition of the suffering of the Russian masses sacrificed for Soviet objectives which they did not understand. See Michail Agursky, “Contemporary Russian Nationalism–History Revisited,” Research Paper (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Soviet and East European Centre, 1982), No. 45, January, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

107. Osipov, Vladimir, “Pis'mo v redaktsiiu,” p. 295. Compare correspondence between A. E. Krasnov-Levitin and Vladimir Osipov in the ninth issue of Veche (A. E. Krasnov, “Pis'mo redaktoru zhurnala ’Veche‘ V. N. Osipovu,” and “Otvet V. N. Osipova–A. E. Krasnovu,” in Arkhiv Samizdata, No. 2040 [Veche, No. 9], pp. 180–194).Google Scholar

108. Osipov, Vladimir, Tri otnosheniia k rodine, p. 8. Similarly, an anonymous Russian Orthodox priest expressed his concern about the future of Russia's youth (“Zaiavlenie sviashchennika” in Arkhiv Samizdata, No. 1020 [Veche, No. 2], p. 103).Google Scholar

109. Borisov, V. M., “Natsional'noe vozrazhdenie i natsiia–lichnost',” Iz-pod glyb, pp. 199–215.Google Scholar

110. Ibid., p. 200.Google Scholar

111. Shafarevich, I. R., “Obosoblenie ili sblizhenie,” Iz–pod glyb , p. 113. Compare Solzhenitsyn's comments on Shafarevich's article in Dve press-konferentsii , p. 45.Google Scholar

112. In his interview with the Associated Press on 25 April 1972, Osipov pointed to the Chinese threat as one of the reasons for the new nationalist movement represented in Veche (Vladimir Osipov, Tri otnosheniia k rodine, p. 202).Google Scholar

113. Solzhenitsyn, A., Pis'mo vozhdiam Sovetskogo Soiuza (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1974), p. 14. In the forward to the émigré edition Solzhenitsyn stated that his Letter was motivated by a single idea: “How to avoid a national catastrophe” (A. Solzhenitsyn, Pis'mo vozhdiam, p. 5).Google Scholar

114. Ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar

115. Osipov, Vladimir, “Pis'mo v redaktsiiu,” p. 295.Google Scholar

116. Starozhubaev, I., “Neskol'ko slov po povodu,” p. 81.Google Scholar

117. “Mysli–prozhektory,” p. 30.Google Scholar

118. Ibid., p. 29.Google Scholar

119. Shafarevich, I. R., “Osoblenie ili sblizhenie,” p. 106. In his chapter “The Influence of the Orthodox Church on Russian Ethnic Identity” Michael Meerson-Aksenov stated that “the psychology of a small, colonized ethnic group is characteristic of Russian ethnocentrist patriotism. It is preservationist patriotism, suffering from an anticolonial complex directed against a certain form of cosmopolitan danger–Marxism.” See Edward Allworth, ed., Ethnic Russia in the USSR, p. 111.Google Scholar

120. Shafarevich, I. R., “Osoblenie ili sblizhenie,” p. 104. Borisov, in one of the major articles of the Iz-pod glyb collection entitled “Natsional'noe vozrazhdenie i natsia-lichnost',” described Marxist ideology as primarily the ideology of national nihilism. A new Communist society was supposed to be built in the place of old Russia. “Marxism in Russia,” wrote Borisov, “undertook such an ‘overcoming’ of nationhood, the likes of which world history had never known” (p. 215). As a result, in a short time the Russian nation lost almost entirely its historical memory, crucial for the preservation of national identity. Furthermore, the annihilation of Russian historical traditions and the replacement of Russian Orthodoxy with the new atheistic faith led to the destruction of Russian national culture.Google Scholar

121. Shafarevich, I. R., “Est'-li u Rossii budushchee?” Iz-pod glyb, p. 276.Google Scholar

122. An anonymous author of “Mysli-prozhektory” wrote, “Russia will be resurrected in spite of everything and everyone. There should be meaning in suffering!” (“Mysli-prozhektory,” p. 29).Google Scholar

123. Shafarevich, I. R., “Est'-li u Rossiii budushchee?” p. 264. In his comments on the Iz-pod glyb collection, Evgenii Barabanov argued that the Christian initiative is a spiritual activity against evil in the world (Dve press-koferentsii, p. 26). Solzhenitsyn in his article, “Obrazovanshchina,” called for personal sacrifice. In his view, the new real Russian intelligentsia should primarily be a “sacrificial elite” (Solzhenitsyn, A. I., “Obrazovanshchina,” Iz-pod glyb , p. 255).Google Scholar

124. The image of crucified Russia suffering for universal salvation was best presented in the preaching of Father Dudko in his samizdat essay, “S russkoi gol'goty” (“V svete preobrazheniia,” Vol'noe slovo, Posev, No. 33, 1979, p. 49).Google Scholar

Some nationalist writers saw sacrificial tendencies throughout the entirety of Russian history. For example, B. Ibragimov described Russia's past in terms of her heroic sacrifice for the sake of the European Christian community. In his idealized interpretation of Russian history, thirteenth-century Russia had rescued Europe from the Tatar invasion by absorbing the enemy into her own flesh and blood. Russia's war with Napoleon in 1812 has been portrayed as a deadly struggle against the Anti-Christ. And, finally, the Russian victory over fascist Germany saved Europe from barbarism quite similar to that of the Tatar yoke (Ibragimov, L., p. 311).Google Scholar

Leonid Borodin, a former member of a Leningrad dissident nationalist organization VSKhSON, in his article “O russkoi intelligentsii,” openly defended the sacrificial character of Russia's history as an important part of her national heritage. In particular, he portrayed the Soviet historical experience in terms of Russia's sacrifice to supply the West with “practical” knowledge of Communism (L. Borodin, “O russkoi intelligentsii,” Grani, No. 96, 1975, p. 248).Google Scholar

125. Korsakov, F., “Russkie sud'by,” Iz-pod glyb , p. 169.Google Scholar

126. Solzhenitsyn, A. I., “Obrazovanshchina,” p. 228.Google Scholar

127. Ibid., p. 225.Google Scholar

128. Ibid., p. 227.Google Scholar

129. Ibid., p. 229. Dmitrii Pospelovskii in his article “Vol'nye mysli o sbornike ‘Iz-po glyb’,” also pointed out that, in spite of his criticism, Solzhenitsyn to a large extent agreed with O. Altaev (Pospelovskii, D., “Vol'nye mysli o sbornike ‘Iz-pod glyb’ ,” Grani, No. 97, 1975, p. 184).Google Scholar

130. Solzhenitsyn, A. I., “Obrazovanshchina,” p. 230.Google Scholar

131. Ibid., p. 237.Google Scholar

132. According to Solzhenitsyn's low esteem of the Russian population, neither workers nor “smatterers” were capable of a passive, Ghandi-like protest against the Soviet authorities (Solzhenitsyn, A. I., “Obrazovanshchina,” p. 256).Google Scholar

133. Nelidov, Dmitrii, p. 281.Google Scholar

134. Solzhenitsyn, A. I., “Obrazovanshchina,” p. 136.Google Scholar

135. Osipov, Vladimir, “Pis'mo v redaktsiiu,” p. 295.Google Scholar

136. Osipov, Vladimir, Tri otnosheniia k rodine, p. 85.Google Scholar

137. Ibid., p. 128.Google Scholar

138. Ibid., p. 85.Google Scholar

139. Ibid., p. 96.Google Scholar

140. Ibid. Google Scholar

141. Ibid., p. 47.Google Scholar

142. Ibid., p. 111.Google Scholar

143. Ibid., p. 108.Google Scholar

144. Ibid., p. 111.Google Scholar

145. Ibid., p. 7.Google Scholar

146. Ibid. Google Scholar

147. In his editorial note, Michael Meerson-Aksenov pointed to the influence of the Metanoia articles on Solzhenitsyn (An Anthology, p. 353).Google Scholar

148. Solzhenitsyn, A. I., “Raskaianie i samoogranichenie,” Iz-pod glyb , p. 130.Google Scholar

149. Ibid., p. 128.Google Scholar

150. Ibid., p. 127.Google Scholar

151. Ibid., p. 147. Gorskii's influence can be seen in Solzhenitsyn's passionate denial of Communist messianism in his Letter to the Soviet Leaders (Solzhenitsyn, A., Pis'mo vozhdiam, p. 47).Google Scholar

152. Shafarevich, I. R., “Osoblenie ili sblizhenie,” p. 111.Google Scholar

153. Compare Solzhenitsyn, A. I., “Raskaianie i samoogranichenie,” p. 137.Google Scholar

154. Ibid., p. 143.Google Scholar

155. See “The VSKhSON Program,” in John Dunlop, The New Russian Revolutionaries , p. 292.Google Scholar

156. Ibid. Google Scholar

157. In “Section II” of the VSKhSON Program the authors contended that even “Fascism…does not represent as all-encompassing a tyranny as Communism” (Dunlop, John, The New Russian Revolutionaries, p. 256).Google Scholar

158. Paradoxically, the members of the VSKhSON, strongly influenced by Berdiaev's philosophy, rejected Berdiaev's basic idea about the specifically Russian character of Communism in the Soviet Union. Compare Nikolai Berdiaev, Russkaia ideia (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1971), pp. 249–250.Google Scholar

159. Compare “Section III” of the VSKhSON Program in John Dunlop, The New Russian Revolutionaries , p. 268.Google Scholar

160. Solzhenitsyn, A. I., “Raskaianie i samoogranichenie,” p. 118.Google Scholar

161. Ibid., p. 126.Google Scholar

162. Shafarevich, I. R., “Obosoblenie ili sblizhenie,” p. 99.Google Scholar

163. Siniavskii, Andrei, in his thoughtful article,“Russian Nationalism,” published in 1988 in a Radio Liberty Research Bulletin, described the concept of “self” (svoi) and “other” (chuzhoi) as deeply rooted in the Russian national character and enhanced by the Soviet government's constant hostility toward the West (Andrei Sinyavsky, “Russian Nationalism,” Russian Nationalism Today, Radio Liberty Research Bulletin, 19 December 1988 [Special Edition], pp. 30–31). According to Siniavskii, Russians' feelings of inferiority and distrust of other peoples found expression in their notorious xenophobia. Both the feeling of national inferiority and xenophobia, in turn, could be viewed as a reflection of the much more basic instinct of envy. During the October Revolution such envy was used to fuel the class struggle and, in the time of glasnost, it manifested itself in Russian hatred of Jews–the symbolic “foreign object in the body of the Soviet Union” (p. 31).Google Scholar

164. Nelidov, Dmitrii in his socio-psychological analysis of the ideocratic consciousness stated that the theory of enemies played a crucial role in sustaining the ideocratic state which fed on people's fear. “Without enemies,” he wrote,”‘double think’ could simply not exist…” (p. 287).Google Scholar

165. Solzhenitsyn, A. I., “Raskaianie i samoogranichenie,” p. 135.Google Scholar

166. Osipov, Vladimir, Tri otnosheniia k rodine, p. 128.Google Scholar

167. Borodin, L., p. 244.Google Scholar

168. Ibid., p. 246.Google Scholar

169. Osipov, Vladimir, Tri otnosheniia k rodine, p. 18.Google Scholar

170. Borodin, L., p. 264.Google Scholar

171. Solzhenitsyn, A. I., “Raskaianie i samoogranichenie,” p. 131.Google Scholar

172. Sakharov, Andrei, “On Solzhenitsyn's Letter to the Soviet Leaders“ in An Anthology , p. 301.Google Scholar

173. Ibid. Google Scholar

174. Kopelev, Lev, “The Lie Can Be Defeated Only by Truth” in An Anthology , p. 320.Google Scholar

175. Agurskii, Mikhail, “The Intensification of Neo-Nazi Dangers in the Soviet Union” in An Anthology, p. 414. Agurskii, Mikhail, a friend of Solzhenitsyn and one of the contributors to the Iz-pod glyb collection, saw the Russian national movement as a powerful obstacle for neo-Nazism. Agurskii defended Solzhenitsyn's Letter as the only “humanist alternative in Russia to racism and neo-Nazism” (p. 418). In his view, Christian religion was the only deterrent against Soviet racism which was “a new form of paganism” (p. 419).Google Scholar

176. Sinyavsky, Andrei, “Russian Nationalism,” p. 14.Google Scholar

177. Compare Duncan, Peter J. S., “The Fate of Russian Nationalism,” pp. 48–49.Google Scholar

178. “‘Survey’ o russkom natsionalizme,” p. 171. Compare the hostile aphorisms about cosmopolitans from “Mysli-prozhektory”: “Cosmopolitanism is spiritual slavery…Cosmopolitanism is preparation for the Anti-Christ” (p. 32).Google Scholar

179. “Ia veriu v nash narod–na vsekh urovniakh,” Posev, No. 4, 1979, p. 24.Google Scholar

180. Ibid. In his émigré article “Literaturnyi protsess v Rossii,” Siniavskii blamed Russia for the agony of emigration in the following words: “Everybody runs and runs away. Russia the mother, Russia the bitch, you will answer for that too” (Siniavskii, Andrei, “Literaturnyi protsess v Rossiii,” Kontinent , No. 1, 1974, p. 183). Both Solzhenitsyn and Shafarevich quoted Siniavskii's words as the classical example of “russophobia.” Compare Dve press-konferentsii, p. 17, p. 49.Google Scholar

181. “Ia veriu v nash narod,” p. 25.Google Scholar

182. Solzhenitsyn, Alexander, “Misconceptions About Russia Are A Threat To America,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 4, Spring 1980, p. 808. Compare Tucker's, Robert C. response to Solzhenitsyn (“Communism and Russia,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 5, Summer 1980, pp. 1178-1183).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

183. “Solzhenitsyn and Russian Nationalism,” The New York Review of Books, 22 November 1979, p. 3.Google Scholar

184. Ibid., p. 4.Google Scholar

185. Ibid., p. 5.Google Scholar

186. Ibid., p. 6.Google Scholar

187. Ianov, Aleksandr, “Na polputi k Leont'evu” in Vadim Belotserkovskii, ed., Demokraticheskie al'ternativy (F.R.G.: Akhbert, 1976), pp. 188–202.Google Scholar

188. Ianov, Aleksandr, “D'iavol meniaet oblik,” Sintaksis , No. 6, 1980, pp. 88–110.Google Scholar

189. Ibid., p. 100.Google Scholar

190. Ianov, Aleksandr, “Na polputi k Leont'evu,” p. 201.Google Scholar

191. Belotserkovskii, Vadim, “Russkii oppozitsionnyi natsionalizm–otkuda on?” in Iz portativnogo GULAGA rossiiskoi emigratsii (Miunkhen, 1983), p. 65.Google Scholar

192. Shafarevich, Igor', “Rusofobiia.” According to the editor's note, the article was written in the early 1980s (p. 167). However, Shafarevich often referred in the text to Amal'rik as if he were alive. Therefore, the article could not have been written later than 1980.Google Scholar

193. “A Letter to Solzhenitsyn,” Appendix No. 1 in An Anthology , p. 437.Google Scholar

194. “Critical Comments of a Russian Regarding the Patriotic Journal Veche,” Appendix No. 2 in An Anthology , pp. 438–448.Google Scholar

195. Ibid., p. 441.Google Scholar

196. Ibid., p. 442.Google Scholar

197. Compare L. Borodin, p. 254.Google Scholar

198. Pomerants, G., “Modernizatsiia nezapadnykh stran” in Samopoznanie , p. 217.Google Scholar

199. Shragin, Boris, “Toska po istorii,” in Samopoznanie , p. 246.Google Scholar

200. For example, in his article “The Intelligentsia and the Democratic Movement,” Volny, K. wrote: “In the life-giving spirit of the intelligentsia lies the key to the destinies of Eastern Europe and the whole world” (p. 189). Compare also G. Pomerants, “Posleslovie,” Neopublikovannoe , p. 335.Google Scholar

201. One could sense a certain deliberate malice in Amal'rik's writings. Though the title of his essay Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? ended with a question mark, Amal'rik predicted the collapse of the Soviet state on the very first page of his essay (p. 5). Amal'rik's self-imposed masochistic detachment from his country reflected great suffering from extrangement and the spiritual malaise of his time rather than russophobia. As Pomerants wrote, “In order to rise above, one must hate one's own filth first” (Pomerants, G., Neopublikovannoe, p. 174).Google Scholar