Narratives of inequality under communism: Voices from below

Problems of Post-Communism

Volumn 52, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 46-58

  Joo, Hyung Min ^a  

^a DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 30344437270     PISSN: 10758216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10758216.2005.11052222     Document Type: Review

References (116)

1. Rene Fueloep-Miller, The Mind and Face of Bolshevism (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), pp. 4-5.
2. Richard Stiles, Revolutionary Dreams (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 10.
3. While traveling around Russia during the first decade of Soviet power, Fueloep-Miller wrote The Mind and Face of Bolshevism about the early revolutionary ideals and experiments of the Bolsheviks in a sympathetic tone. But with its extensive archival sources, Stites's Revolutionary Dreams is the most authoritative book.
4. Stites, Revolutionary Dreams, pp. 232-33.
5. The pioneering work of Sheila Fitzpatrick made Western scholars aware of the vydvizhentsy. See her Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union, 1921-1934 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
6. Also refer to her other ground-breaking works on similar subjects: Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928-1931 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977)
7. and The Cultural Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary Russia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992).
8. Vera Dunham, ed., In Stalin's Time: Middleclass Values in Soviet Fiction (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), p. 4.
9. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Oramsci (New York: International Publishers, 1971), p. 74.
10. Richard Sheldon, introduction to In Stalin's Time: Middleclass Values in Soviet Fiction, ed. Vera Dunham (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), p. xix.
11. The argument that the October Revolution was betrayed by Stalin was first made by Trotsky and later accepted by many Western scholars. See Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It Going? (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran, 1937);
12. Nicholas S. Timasheff, The Great Retreat (New York: Dutton, 1946);
13. Milovan Djilas, The New Class (New York: Praeger, 1962);
14. Dunham, In Stalin's Time.
15. Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times - Soviet Russia in the 1930s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
16. For the privileges of the Soviet ruling stratum, see Mervyn Matthews, Privileges in the Soviet Union: A Study of Elite Life Style in Communism (Boston: Alien & Unwin, 1978)
17. and Ilya Zemtsov, The Private Life of the Soviet Elite (New York: Crane Russak, 1985).
18. Relying on Russian sources, Zemtsov concluded that "more than a third (36 percent) of the total government wage fund in 1970 was allocated among 10 percent of the population. . . . To this same 10 percent went 87 percent of the private automobiles, 91 percent of the government summer homes, and 77 percent of the cooperative apartments. In 1971 alone, they received 48 percent of all the passes to sanatoria and resorts, and 39 percent of the newly-constructed housing." To support this argument, Zemtsov cited "Trud i chelovek vyp. 2" (Work and Men), Informatisionnyi biulleten SSR i Sovetskoi Sotsiologicheskoi Assotsiatsii (Information Bulletin of SSR and Soviet Sociological Association), no. 73 (Moscow: Institute of Practical Social Research, 1972), pp. 77-78.
19. David Lane, The End of Social Inequality? (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982), pp. 55-57.
20. Giuseppe Di Palma, "Legitimization from the Top to Civil Society: Politico-Cultural Change in Eastern Europe," World Politics 44, no. 1 (1991): 71.
21. Julius Telesin, "Inside Samizdat," Encounter 15, no. 2 (1973): 30.
22. F.J.M. Feldbrugge, Samizdat and Political Dissent in the Soviet Union (Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1975), p. 3.
23. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 388.
24. Hyung-min Joo, "Voices of Freedom: Samizdat," Europe-Asia Studies 56, no. 4 (2004): 571-94.
25. Hyung-min Joo, "Voices of Freedom: Samizdat," Europe-Asia Studies 56, no. 4 (2004): 571-94. Ibid.
26. James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985);
27. idem, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).
28. The main currents of samizdat have been categorized in several different ways. Feldbrugge, for instance, classifies them as communist, socialist, democrat, or nationalist, while L. Alexeyeva uses socialist, human rights activist, and Russian national. See Feldbrugge, Samizdat and Political Dissent in the Soviet Union
29. and Ludmilla Alexeyeva, Soviet Dissent: Contemporary Movements for National, Religious, and Human Rights (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1985).
30. Probably the most unique alternative was suggested by a leading socialist dissident, Roy Medvedev, who divides the samizdat phenomenon into four groups: Westernizers, ethical socialists, Christian socialists, and legalists. See his On Socialist Democracy (Nottingham, UK: Spokesman Books, 1977), pp. 66-82.
31. Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 166 and 132.
32. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 306.
33. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 80.
34. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 166.
35. Sarah Davies, "Us Against Them: Social Identity in Soviet Russia 1934-41," in Stalinism: New Directions, ed. Sheila Fitzpatrick (New York: Routledge, 2000), p. 47.
36. Lev Kopelev, The Education of a True Believer (New York: Harper and Row, 1978).
37. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 80.
38. Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 132 and 109.
39. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 166. In 1964, Evgenii S. Varga, also known as Eugene Varga in the West, wrote this samizdat text often called the "Varga Testament." He was born in Hungary in 1879. He served in Bela Kun's short-lived Hungarian communist government after World War I, then went to Moscow in 1920 and became a member of the CPSU. Recognized 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 Science in 1939. During Stalin's final years, however, Varga was disgraced on account of his "non-Marxist" views. Under the Khrushchev administration, Varga's fortunes were reversed - he was not only rehabilitated but also received the Order of Lenin in 1954. In spite of this, Varga continued to develop his own views, which were often described as somewhat non-Marxist. The so-called Varga Testament was his last piece written for samizdat just before he died in 1964. It was originally published in the underground journal Phoenix-66, which was edited by the famous dissident lu. Galanskov. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 25.
40. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 4451. As shown here, it was a common view among dissidents that there was "a new ruling class" in Soviet society. The work of Milovan Djilas, a former vice president of Yugoslavia and a personal friend of Tito, was widely quoted. According to Djilas, the "new class" arose under the banner of socialism and abused its administrative monopoly for special privileges. See Milovan Djilas, The New Class (New York: Praeger, 1962), p. 35.
41. In contrast, Roy Medvedev, perhaps the most famous socialist dissident from the perspective of the West, made a strong objection to this argument. Although admitting that there were ruling elites with preposterous privileges in the Soviet Union, Medvedev argued that "they do not constitute a class" because they neither owned the means of production nor bequeathed their positions to their children. See Medvedev, On Socialist Democracy, p. 297.
42. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1198.
43. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1198. Ibid.. The English translation does not do justice to Glumov's literary talent. In the translated text, Glumov seems to be making a contrast between an "election" and a "choice." In Russian, however, both words have the same root, vybor. While the singular noun vybor means "choice," the plural form vybory means "election." The Russian word for "election" (vybory), as a plural form, inherently implies that there should be more than one "choice" (vybor). By using these semantic and morphological differences, Glumov is pointing out that the Soviet election system with only one candidate cannot be vybory ("election") in any meaningful sense. Instead, it is just vybor ("choice") of those above. A similar criticism of the Soviet election system was made by other dissident groups, such as the Marxist Group 68-80 (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 5112) and the Democratic Movement of the Soviet Union (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 602). For more information on the Democratic Movement, see n. 56. The Marxist Group 68-80 was an anonymous socialist dissident group. Apparently, "68-80" indicated the ideological orientation of the group: the Prague Spring (1968) and the Solidarity movement in Poland (1980).
44. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 4646.
45. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1198.
46. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1198. Ibid.
47. Medvedev, On Socialist Democracy, p. 297.
48. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1198.
49. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 166.
50. The quotation is from a samizdat article entitled "Russian Social Democrats and Future Russia," which appeared in the early 1980s (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 4451). As far as the title is concerned, there is nothing unique about this item because many socialist dissidents called themselves "social democrats." A close reading of the material, however, reveals a significant difference, even a thrill. The article begins with a provocative statement. "The dispute which arose among Russian socialists at the beginning of the twentieth century is still going on - the dispute between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks." What does this have to do with socialist democrats? "Ignoring various factions, we will call Mensheviks social democrats." That is, the article gave voice to the Mensheviks, who had disappeared from the Soviet scene in the early 1920s. After almost sixty years of absence, Mensheviks were announcing their revival in the Soviet Union, throwing down the gauntlet to the CPSU. As a result, the dispute was still on.
51. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1198.
52. Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 62 and 79.
53. This document was written by an anonymous author with the pseudonym "Volgin." It first appeared in the samizdat journal Kolokol (Bell), no. 4 (May 1965). Kolokol was the journal of an underground Bolshevik group called the Union of Communards. Regarding the 1871 Paris Commune as its ideal, the group was based at the Leningrad Institute of Technology. Unfortunately, Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 553 is the only available document from Kolokol.
54. Medvedev. On Socialist Democracy, pp. 50-58.
55. Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 1138, 1139, and 1174.
56. In particular, Seiatel argued that the October Revolution was not a socialist revolution. Instead, it had established "state capitalism." Although not a dominant view, the state-capitalism argument was found among some socialist dissidents. For instance, the so-called pseudo-Medvedev described the October Revolution as a bourgeois event that had established a state bureaucratic phase of capitalism (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 306). S. Zorin and N. Alekseev also analyzed the Soviet system from the viewpoint of state capitalism (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 368). Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 368 is the only article written by S. Zorin in the archived collection. N. Alekseev, a worker living in Moscow, wrote another short essay, "Note from a Worker," in the early 1980s to express his sympathy with the Solidarity movement in Poland (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 4413). Perhaps a brief explanation is necessary about the anonymous author whom Feldbrugge aptly named "Pseudo-Medvedev." See Feldbrugge, Samizdat and Political Dissent in the Soviet Union, p. 59. In 1968, an article entitled "The Truth about the Present Day" was circulated in samizdat under the name of Medvedev. In a personal letter to Posev on March 25, 1970, however, Medvedev denied authorship of the article. In fact, a close reading reveals that it could not have been written by Medvedev because some crucial arguments in the text directly contradicted his 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" in the Soviet Union. Instead, the grass-roots democracy of "the Paris Commune" was regarded as the ideal for all spheres of life, even including the army and the police. At this point, the divergence from Medvedev was quite obvious (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 306).
57. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1139.
58. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1139. Ibid.
59. Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 1129 and 547.
60. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 3636.
61. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 5543. It goes without saying that there was widespread agreement among many socialist dissidents that any struggle for their ideals should adopt only peaceful means. In this respect, the articles in Socialists-82, collected by M. Bolkhovskoi (pseudonym), were exemplary (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 4769). After a careful analysis of "ideas of non-violence" like those of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., Socialists-82 raised a crucial question: "Is there anything in common between the idea of non-violence and socialism?" Without doubt, "socialists in the nineteenth century agreed that violence was necessary." After the Soviet experience, however, it was obvious that "a higher way was represented by Gandhi and King." As a result, violence was "no longer to be the midwife of history" (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 4769).
62. Feldbrugge, Samizdat and Political Dissent in the Soviet Union, p. 94.
63. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 4769.
64. Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 1430, 4602, and 4646.
65. This point is perhaps best demonstrated in the famous interview of Andrei Sakharov by the Swedish reporter Ulle Stenholm. The interview occurred in June 1973 when a détente mood was in the air. In the interview, Sakharov expressed his dissident views on many issues, including inequality in the Soviet Union. The most controversial part of the interview, however, came when Sakharov criticized the détente between the United States and the Soviet Union, arguing that a genuine détente should not ignore the domestic conditions of Soviet society. Instead, it should be utilized to pressure the Soviet regime to make social progress (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1455). The interview was broadcast in Sweden on July 2, and Sakharov was warned by the deputy procurator-general not to make further "antiSoviet and subversive" statements (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1463). In response, Sakharov held a press conference on August 21, 1973, in which he argued that international détente without democratization would be "dangerous" (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1470). A week later, the Soviet press printed a letter by forty academicians censuring Sakharov. As if it were a signal, there was an outpouring of letters of protest against Sakharov in the national and local newspapers. The whole incident prompted L. Chukovskaia to write the famous samizdat article called "The Anger of the People," in which she questioned the potential that "simple" people had for a better future (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1480). In addition, many leading dissidents - not only democrats but also socialists and Slavophiles - came out in support of Sakharov, including V. Turchin, I. Shafarevich, P. Litvinov, and B. Shragin (Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 1464 and 1694). Perhaps the most impressive support came from Alexander Solzhenitsyn with his "Peace and Violence," in which he nominated Sakharov for the Nobel Peace Prize (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1479). For the details of this event and the life of Sakharov, see Andrei Sakharov, Memoirs (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990),
66. and Richard Lourie, Sakharov: A Biography (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 2002).
67. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 357.
68. As a non-conformist writer, Andrei Amalrik was tried, imprisoned, and exiled to Siberia in 1965 for his "anti-Soviet" views. He wrote Involuntary Journey to Siberia to describe his exile days (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 450). In 1966 he was released and returned to Moscow, but he soon found himself in trouble again. In 1968 he received a warning from the government for transmitting famous samizdat works to the West (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 387). A year later, Amalrik published the seminal work that imprinted his name forever in the minds of dissidents: Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? For this, he was again arrested in 1969 and sentenced to three years in prison (Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 518 and 519). After serving out his term, Amalrik was sentenced to forced labor in July 1973. At this point, there was an outpouring of letters of protest and petitions to save him (Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 1436 and 1521). According to Sakharov. these appeals to international public opinion were successful in building up pressure on the Soviet regime and at the end of 1973 resulted in the commutation of his sentence to three years of exile in Siberia (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 2235). For more information about Amalrik, see his autobiography: Andrei Amalrik, Notes of a Revolutionary (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982). Also, for his various samizdat activities, see Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 142, 358, 362, 387, 395, 476, 1044, 2337. 2536, and 2547.
69. Andrei Amalrik, Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), p. 35.
70. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 359.
71. Amalrik, Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? pp. 40 and 64.
72. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 633.
73. Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 340 and 633.
74. In particular, there was a tendency among socialist dissidents to focus on the socio-economic rights of "the workers." For instance, see the "free trade union" movement known as SMOT (Free Inter-Trade Union of Workers), which aimed to improve the material well-being of the proletariat (Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 3512, 3513, 3516, 3674, 3842, 3911, 3935, and 4780). While recognizing the poor living conditions of the working class, democrats believed that it was peasants who represented "the most exploited part of our society." In fact, "socialism was built upon their bones" (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 340). As a result, there was good reason why peasants read the Bolshevik Party's abbreviation VKP(b) as Vtoroe Krepostnoe pravo bolshevikov ["the second serfdom of the Bolshevik]" (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 602).
75. In the late 1960s, the Democratic Movement of the Soviet Union (Demokraticheskoe Dvizhenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, or DDSS) appeared. For a while, not much was known about this group. For example, despite his thorough analysis of samizdat up to the early 1970s, Feldbrugge wrote that "nothing is known" about this group. See Feldbrugge, Samizdat and Political Dissent in the Soviet Union, p. 132. As it turned out, a Russian engineer living in Tallinn, S. Soldatov, led the whole movement, which included Ukrainian and Estonian participants. The Soldatov group was finally broken up in 1974. Though the DDSS ceased to function after 1974, Soldatov continued his dissident activities (Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 2708, 2867, 3021, 3241, 3253, 3256, and 3625). After providing plans for a complete overhaul of the Soviet system in its "Memorandum" (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 602), the Democratic Movement outlined its detailed reform proposal in its "Program" in order to establish a new "democratic" state (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 340). After laying down its reform program, the Democratic Movement outlined its strategies in the "Tactical Principle of the Democratic Movement of the Soviet Union" (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 2999a). At this point, the Soldatov group - still shrouded in secrecy -fueled a heated controversy because of its support for "conspiratorial" means of struggle against the Soviet regime. In fact, criticism came not only from socialist dissidents and Slavophiles but also from the majority of democrats. For criticism and defense of the Soldatov group on this issue, see the underground journal it produced, Demokrat, especially No. 6 (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1152e).
76. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 602.
77. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 340.
78. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 3843.
79. Amalrik, Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? p. 33.
80. Samizdat Archive Doc Nos. 48, 763, and 1480.
81. Khronika, no. 56 (April 30, 1980).
82. Khronika, Ibid., no. 52 (March 1, 1979).
83. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 3752.
84. Khronika, no. 56 (April 30, 1980).
85. Khronika, Ibid., no. 54 (November 11, 1979).
86. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 5148.
87. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 4303.
88. Joo, "Voices of Freedom: Samizdat."
89. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1358.
90. Samizdat Archive Doc. Nos. 340, 602, 1152e, 3256, and 4451.
91. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1858b.
92. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1696.
93. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 590.
94. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 590. Ibid.
95. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1858b.
96. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 590.
97. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1481.
98. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 590.
99. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1481.
100. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1858a.
101. In addition to this "political" version, anti-Semitism was also said to have had a "religious" origin. That is, a "Christian" anti-Semitism had developed over the centuries in Russia. In this view, the Jewish people were labeled "god killers" (bogoubiitsa). From this, it was further argued that they were "the cause of many natural disasters as well as social troubles" (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1355).
102. Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 1858a. Most Slavophiles, let alone so cialists and democrats, made known their rejection of the "chauvinistic" and "racist" views of the malign Slavophiles. For instance, A. Levitin-Krasnov pointed out that "Russian patriots" spoke "the dead word' that brought only hatred and misunderstanding (Khronika, no. 19, April 30, 1971). V. Ousarov was offended by "Russian Nazism" and could not fathom how anyone could believe in "the purity of Russian blood": "God knows what happened to that pure blood during the 300 years of the Tartar yoke." Moreover, "as for the prehistoric era - that vast period - not even God would be able to guess." When Gusarov looked at his "Russian" family, he was unable to find any "pure blood." For instance, "my uncle has two daughters: one blonde and one brunette." The latter married into a Jewish family "who did not notice her Russian origin." Also, "my son has an Armenian grandfather and a grandmother who is half-Polish and half-Ukrainian." Such was the reality of "pure blood" (Samizdat Archive Doc. No. 688). Under such circumstances, "Russian Nazism" would only "drag us" to hatred and destruction. As a result, one must struggle against it. Otherwise, "Russia itself is useless" (to ne nuzhno nikakoi Roccii). In other words, what mattered was not Russia itself but what it stood for (Samizdat Archive, Doc. No. 688).
103. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon Books, 1977), p. 195.
104. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1951);
105. Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956);
106. Martin Malia, The Soviet Tragedy (New York; Free Press, 1994);
107. Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990).
108. Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), pp. 45-49.
109. Norberto Bobbio, "Democracy and Invisible Government," Telos, no. 52 (1982): 48-49.
110. Jean Comaroff, Body of Power, Spirit of Resistance: The Culture and History of a South African People (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985).
111. Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959).
112. Vaclav Havel, The Power of the Powerless: Citizens Against the State in Central-Eastern Europe (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1985).
113. Scott, Weapons of the Weak.
114. Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980).
115. Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller, 1980, Ibid., pp. 52-53.
116. Gregory Grossman and Vladimir G. Treml, "Measuring Hidden Personal Incomes in the Soviet Union," in The Unofficial Economy, ed. Sergio Alessandrini and Bruno Dallago (Brookfield, VT: Gower, 1987), p. 101