REVIEWS

155

Andrej Dimitriewi6 Saxarov, Stellungnahme (Declaration), Verlag Fritz Molden, Wien-Mtinchen-Zfirich, 1974. 223S. DM 14,80. In late Summer of 1973 the campaign against the Russian physicist and reformer reached such an intensity that knowledgeable people feared the worst. Was the r6gime embarked on the path of elimination of its critics, in order of their importance? And, was this outcome not being rather encouraged by Saxarov's determined opposition, comparable to that of Jan Hus for some and of Jan Palach for others ? Patriotism and chauvinism were beginning to blossom when the world-press intervened. Added to this was the effect registered by the 'repentant' dissidents, Jakir and K.rassin, and by the various harrassments, to which dissidents were subjected - arrests, expulsions, emigration, etc. At first, the campaign against Saxarov had no direct consequences for him. However, the August 16, 1973 warning from the Attorney General was unambiguous and remains operative. The attention of the world seemed to turn away in the Fall and Winter of 1973 from the Soviet dissidents - because of the ddtente but also with a sigh of relief. There was a reduction of concern for Amalrik, Bukowskij, Grigorenko and others - until the events surrounding publication of Sol~enitcyn's Gulag Archipelago: the suicide of a collaborator, publication of part of the book in the West and, finally, the expulsion of the author, leaving behind increased tension between the r6gime and the intellectuals. The peripeties of the Summer 1973 campaign against Saxarov should be kept in mind when considering his status in 1974 - after the publication of a collection of documents which he himself undertook in the West (making the choice of title rather questionable), in view of the internal crises there. In other words, Saxarov is more in danger than ever. The death of Pompidou, the resignation of Brandt, the decline of Nixon's prestige, the internal threats to the EEC and Nato - these have combined not only to further weaken hopes for ddtente but also to raise expectations for the imminent breakdown of the capitalist system. One of Saxarov's basic ploys is to contrast the economic and cultural stagnation of his country with the scientific-technological advance of the West, based on its liberalism. Events, however, seem to be confirming the views of the old-time dogmatists of Marxism-Leninism (what is more the most recent Studies in Soviet Thought 15 (1975) 155-157. All Rights Reserved Copyright © 1975 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland

156

REVIEWS

large-scale projects - opening of marginal agricultural land and a second Transsiberian - are both inspired by Stalinist rather than by liberal economic views) and reducing the chances of Saxarov's ideas being of influence on the r~gime. Included in the set of documents is Saxarov's recollection of his interview with M. P. Maljarov, Deputy Attorney General of the U.S.S.R. When Saxarov brought up the ease of Amalrik, Maljarov called the latter a "student who refused to learn", and added: "He has been of no use to the State; he is a parasite"; later, he added: "in contrast to these unteachables, you have been of use to society". Maljarov also said: "You are still a Soviet citizen" ... "you still have your head, your brain". At the beginning of the interview, Maljarov had described Saxarov's activity as anti-Soviet. In other words, Saxarov's earlier contributions as a physicist were still affording him protection; but, this shield is wearing out and he no longer counts as a physicist; his notoriety has become a handicap. World interest in Saxarov's spiritual development as a committed physicist (along the lines of Robert Oppenheimer), served to protect Saxarov and his fellow-dissidents, as long as d~tente remained an experiment with an uncertain outcome; i.e., as long as there were hopes in the nuclear domain, in the Middle East, in commercial relations, etc. Dimming of these hopes worked against loyal clitics of the Soviet system. The celebration of the 250th anniversary of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, which would have brought further international attention to Saxarov and other dissidents, has been delayed sine die. Even the recent elections to the Academy did not follow the r~gime's schedule. Many faithful Party members are in a rage and are asking why so many should be inconvenienced by so few. They think it is high time for a purge of the unconscientious members. That the failure of d~tente is ultimately threatening can be seen from the fact that Saxarov's April3,1974 answer to Sol~enitcyn's open letter of September 5, 1973 provides a 'liberal democratic' response to Sol~enitcyn's 'populism': such a split in the opposition can only serve the objectives of the r~gime. What is more, in April 1974, Jefim Etkind, a sexagenarian literary historian from Leningrad, lost any chance of a job simply because of his previous contact with the exiles, Brodsky and Sol~enitcyn. Every document in this collection contributes to illustrating the domestic position of the intelligentsia in the Soviet Union. Those who have

REVIEWS

157

paid less attention to such events in Russia than they have to similar occurrences in Chile, will see how miserably the official Kommunist distorted Saxarov's appeal to the Junta in favor of Pablo Neruda. Saxarov's life is covered by a sketch done by himself and an essay by Harrison Salisbury. It is Saxarov's frankness and courage - coupled with his overcoming of fear - that impress the reader of these documents. In 1970/71 Saxarov was still distinguishing between socialism and Stalinism with its vestiges in the present. In 1972 he recognized that "The main traits of the classsystem in the social and ideological realms have not essentially changed." By 1973, we find him saying: "People are gripped by fear as they were during the campaign against Pasternak... as they were during the campaign against cosmopolitanism. It is the same fear..." The term 'Panzer Communism' that was so widespread in 1968 has a more profound meaning, related to the intimate nature of the Soviet system. Mditaristic patriotism is needed to protect a worn-out rdgime and an anachronistic ideology: mobilization is to fend offinternal disintegration: the dinosaur is dying. Saxarov's views contrast with the most recent ones of Roy Med~edev, calling for the organizing of all democratic forces from below. He who says the truth and thereby attacks the 'State' (according to Maljarov) has already forfeited his life. The Church defended itself against Giordano Bruno because it understood him. The Jacobins sent Antoine Lavoisier to the scaffold because they thought that the revolution did not need intellectuals. For the KGB and the Attorney General, the Saxarov case is already 'closed'; the ddnouement is only a question of time. Expulsion is improbable in this case. One would have thought that the MaxPlanck-Gesellschaft would long ago have followed the lead of the U.S. Academy of Sciences by naming Saxarov to its ranks. The world should learn, Saxarov cries out to us, from the miscarriages of his homeland. The leadership of his own country is not heeding his warnings. Can nonMarxists learn any better from history than Marxists are doing? The interest of this volume will not be reduced by the often avoidable errors; e.g., Bessmer for Bezemer.

Vienna Translated by T. J . Blakeley

KURT MARKO