(2 of 4)
In the West, the essays may buttress the conviction of Solzhenitsyn's critics that he is a mystical reactionary who places too much faith in the values of the Orthodox Church and Old Russia. Among Soviet dissidents, however, his arguments are certain to enliven a debate about the nation's future. Solzhenitsyn and his circle reject the argument that truly significant change can come only from within the Communist system. Solzhenitsyn personally takes issue with a second line of thought, propounded by Physicist Andrei Sakharov, who believes that Russia's ultimate hope for freedom lies in a convergence with Western political systems.
Solzhenitsyn questions whether democracy would bring real freedom to Russia. "The multiparty parliamentary system is impracticable in Russia," he writes. "It has never been necessary to the prosperity and high achievements of mankind. Authoritarian regimes are not terrible in themselves—only those which are not answerable to God or their own conscience. Russia will most probably move from one authoritarian form of government to another. This will be the most natural and least painful path of development. Our present system is terrible not because it is undemocratic and based on force—a man can still live without harm to his soul under such regimes—what makes ours uniquely horrible is that it demands total surrender of the soul. What we need is not political liberation—only liberation of the soul from participation in the lie forced upon us."
Here are excerpts from two of Solzhenitsyn's essays:
ON THE DEBASEMENT OF THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENTSIA:
The intelligentsia! The term is one that Russians most love to argue over. Yet it is used in widely different ways, and its very vagueness tends greatly to diminish the value of their conclusions. The writers of Vekhi defined the intelligentsia not in terms of the level or nature of their education but according to their ideology. They were a sort of new, religionless, humanist order.
We read Vekhi today with a dual awareness, for the failings we are shown seem to be those not only of an era that is past, but in many respects those of our own times. Then: a general sense of martyrdom. Now: the desire is for self-preservation. Vekhi listed characteristics that seemed to be faults at the time —but today they may seem virtues. For example, in the past universal equality was an aim worthy of self-sacrifice. Then: the heroic intellectual dreamt of being the savior of mankind or Russia. He was convinced the only course was social struggle. Now: the only course is subservience. . .
By the beginning of the '30s, even the technical intelligentsia had been reduced to total submission. It was also well-schooled in treachery. It learned to vote obediently for whatever penalties were demanded. When one brother was annihilated, another brother would dutifully step into his shoes. By this time, there was no command so amoral that the Russian intelligentsia would not have obsequiously rushed to execute it.