Soviet Dissident Thought
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1977 Discord and Unity: Soviet Dissident Thought Kevin M. Quinley College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Asian Studies Commons, Eastern European Studies Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Quinley, Kevin M., "Discord and Unity: Soviet Dissident Thought" (1977). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539624989. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-7b0m-mb84 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DISCORD AND UNITY: SOVIET DISSIDENT THOUGHT A Thesis Presented to The Facility of the Department of Government The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Kevin Milton Quinley 1977 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts r d ' d U D m Author Approved, August 1977 Michael G. Hillinger <an. FOR MI PARENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page ACKNOTVLEDGMENTS....................... vi ABSTRACT .................................. ............. vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION................................. 2 Context and Relevance 2 Components of Dissidence 7 Aims and Methods 13 Hypotheses and Categories l£ CHAPTER H . SOLZHENITSIN: POLITICS OF SUFFERING'AND LIMITATION................... 2$ Soviet Tyranny 26 Ideology . 38 The Problem of Change IfL The Limits of Politics b$ Mother Russia $2 Critical Evaluation £6 Conclusion 60 CHAPTER I H . SAKHAROV: THE SCIENTIST AS DISSIDENT............................... 70 The Soviet System 72 Marxism and Socialism 78 Stalinism 83 The Problem of Change 8£ The New Enlightenment 93 Critical Evaluation 9h Conclusion 99 CHAPTER IV. AMALRIK: THE DISSIDENT AS S E E R .................................107 The Soviet System 108 Marxism and Socialism 118 The Reformist Illusion 120 Morals and Values 128 Soviet Apocalypse 133 Critical Evaluation 136 Conclusion 139 iv. CHAPTER V. THE DISSIDENT D I A L O G U E ..........................11*6 Solzhenitsyn on East-West Relations 1h6 Sakharov on East-West Relations 1?1 Amalrik on East-West Relations 162 The Dissident Debate 16U CHAPTER VI. E P I L O G U E ........................................ 177 v. ACMOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Michael Hillinger and Dr. Bruce Rigelman, under whose guidance this thesis was written, for their careful reading and criticism of the manuscript. Special thanks also go to Professor Chonghan Kim, without whose assistance this thesis would not have been written. The author also wants to thank his father for his care and patience in preparing the manuscript. ABSTRACT • This thesis aims to dispel the prevalent Western notion of a monolithic dissident movement within the Soviet Union. Doctrinal dispute among individual dissenters reveals an entire philosophical spectrum within the movement itself. To prove that the dissident movement is variegated, we have compared the political thought of three prominent Soviet dissenters— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, and Andrei Amalrik. Writings of each thinker have been examined to reveal a lively debate over subjects such as the viability of socialism, the future of Russia, and the wisdom of detente. Solzhenitsyn emerges as a Christian ideologist in the 19th century Russophile vein. Sakharov starts from a neo-Marxist perspec tive in the late 1960's, only to discard the socialist label in 1975 in favor of liberalism and internationalism. Amalrik serves as a prophet who foretells Russia's doom. He is less analytical, more visceral In his dissent than Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov. These men sustain a political dialogue which engages other dissidents such as Roy Medvedev and Vladmiir Bukovsky. Despite their differences, however, the dissidents are united in their support of basic human rights. The thesis ends by suggesting that an emasculated political movement is the price dissidents pay for fidelity to their ideals. Espousing toleration and free discussion in the face of Party decree, the dissidents practice these same qualities among themselves and undermine their movement's unity. An emerging dissident movement may hint at growing pluralism within Soviet society. Discord among dis sidents reveals much pluralism within the movement itself, thus laying to rest one Western misconception. DISCORD AND UNITY: SOVIET DISSIDENT THOUGHT CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Context and Relevance Let ns start from the premise that no government ever commands the unanimous support of its citizenry. Dissent is ubiquitous, not in the sense that some regimes govern entirely disloyal populations, but rather in the sense that some opposition can be found within any 1 state. One would not expect even the most dictatorial regime to be free of disaffected elements, however miniscule or concealed. Given the soundness of this premise, the study of political dissent in the Soviet Union is clearly justified. This is not to say that if dissent ■was rare, then studying it in the Soviet Union would be an illegitimate endeavor. But if dissent was merely a sporadic phenomenon, the Soviet Union would be the last place where we would expect to find it. Since the short-lived, cultural thaw following Stalin's death in 1953y the Soviet leadership has reacted to political dissent in an indecisive manner. Steering a course between Stalinist terror and unrestrained liberalization has been the awkward task of the Georgian's successors. Even Nikita Khrushchev, who initially repudiated Stalin’s harshness, retracted the policy of cultural toleration once he saw the excesses committed in the name of the thaw. Stalin’s answer to opposition had been simple. Few were in the voices that bullets, 2 3- beatings3 and prisons could not silence. Yet such policies* though decisive in their time^ were rejected by Khrushchev in 1956. When Khrushchev later wished to rein in the forces he had unleashed* no alternate course was readily available. In the late 1950's and early 1960's ., Soviet intellectuals were in the uncomfortable position of not knowing just how much they could complain without inviting reprisals. Khrushchev’s heirs offered a partial answer in early 1966. Two writers, Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel* were convicted of violating 2 Article 70 of the Soviet Constitution. Specifically* Daniel and Sinyavsky were accused of having pseudonymous ly written anti-Soviet articles which later appeared in Western bourgeois publications. For this crime* the men were sentenced to labor camps for five to seven 3 • years. A few prominent intellectuals objected to the trials fearing that it presaged a return to Stalinist intolerance. Sympathetic writers issued protest letters., formed defense committees3 and secretly Ij. circulated the trial’s transcript. All of this may now seem mild* but in Stalin’s time such insolence was suicidal. Many observers now believe the trial heralded the first steps of cultural de-Khrushchev- ization undertaken by the Brezhnev-Kosygin leadership. Above all* the post-1966 era has witnessed the development in Russia of what may be called a dissident movement. For numerous reasons one may justifiably refer to a dissident movement. Ideologically * this ’’political counterculture” embraces'many common causes. Except for a few underground neo-Stalinist and fascist groups* nearly all dissidents esteem spiritual and moral values3 oppose injustice and conformity., and desire a larger measure of legality in government action. But this point should not be overdrawn* as it often has been in the West* to say that there are no major differences among dissidents's ideas. Many prominent scientists* artists* and writers are aware of the radical nature of their views. Members of the dissident community are attentive to each other' s thoughts and are 7 accustomed to informally discussing taboo subjects. If political theory consists of reasoned discourse through time* then dissent occupies its own niche within the study of political philosophy. Unsanctioned political discourse has surfaced in the Soviet Union. All three thinkers analyzed herein— Alexander Solzhenitsyn* Andrei Sakharov* and Andrei Amalrik— engage in political dialogue. Even before his exile* Solzhenitsyn maintained a lively correspondence with Sakharov. Sakharov has critiqued Solzhenitsyn's ideas* and the novelist has responded in kind. Sakharov has organized a Human Rights Committee which has as its aim the protection of fellow dissidents. Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov are co-editors of Kontinent * an emigre journal of East-West relations. Amalrik has protested at political trials* and has appraised the views of other dissidents. By means of circulated letters* petitions* samizdat (secretly self-published writings)* and informal contacts* the dissident movement has formed and has maintained a remarkable degree of cohesion. Still* one must remember that such cohesion falls short of unanimity. Increased publicity has thus produced In the 1970’s a situation where the importance of the dissident movement transcends the domestic realm. The existence of a dissident current beneath the ideological mainstream now has international