But exactly the same question could have been asked with regard to the political doctr'ne of the original Slavophiles, which in the same way — 130 years ago — comb led a sincere and self-sacrificing struggle against 'soul-destroying despot ;m' with a no less sincere revulsion for 'Western constitutions' ana 'the party organization'. My answer is that the inexplicable can be explained and the irreconcilable reconciled, but only within the framework of a Utopia — an ideological construct unrealizable in practice. Thus my argument with Dunlop concerns not what Russia would be Mke if the VSKhSON programme were to be implemented (since t could not be in the form in which it was conceived), but rather what was the real social functit n of th' nationalist utopi anism in the ideological struggle unfolding in the USSR. The function was obviously a dual one. On the one hand, the VSKhSON programme was conceived in all sincerity as an anti- Communist manifesto, as a passionate appeal for 'Russia's rebirth from under the yoke of Bolshevism'. As an open and unyielding opponent of the Soviet system, its function was to stimulate the oppositionist, dissident movement in the USSR. On the other hand, permeated as it was with anti-Europeanism and medieval poJ'tical attidudes, the VSKhSON programme inev; ably stimulated the Right opposition, which is the main interest of this book
Five ideological events have conditioned the development of this Utopia:
Khrushchev's revelations of the totalitarian nature of the Stalinist regime at the XXth Party Congress.
The defeat of Khrushchev's reforms, leading to the conclusion that national regeneration 'from above' is impossible.
The lessons of the Hungarian uprising of 1956, wh ch seemed to demonstrate that a Communist regime is a form of latent civil war between the government and the people. (From this it followed that Communist governments 'hang in the air and that a slight revolutionary push is all that is needed to topple them.)
Milovan Djlias's book The New Class, which provided a theoretical basis for the practical lessons of the Hungarian uprising.
Khrushchev's liberalization, which created the conditions under which young Soviets could for the lirst brne become lam «liar with the books of Berdiaev, among these The New Middle Ages. which opposed to the Western (democratic) path of struggle against 'soul-destroying despotism' a fundamentally different 'Russian path'.
In fact, as history has shown, no such Russian path exists But the group of young people who gathered around the banner of the VSKhSON sincerely believed in it. However, this d'd not make them "new Russian revolutionaries , as Dunlop would have it, but merely run-of-the-nr'U Russian Utopians.
Summary of the VSKhSON
In conclusion, here is a summary of the ideas which the VSKhSON contributed to the formation of the doctrine of the Russian dissident Right in the twentieth century:
the Russian Idea, a tradition of 'free communion with God and the acceptance of His commandments'). Accordingly, the political struggle is desci bed as 'a spiritual struggle for the individual'.
Abandonment of the idea of revising the imperial structure of 'Great Russia', which is equivalent to an oblique recognition of imperial nationalism
Political intolerance, connected to the maximalist character of a doctrine wh ch is tantamount to ruling out political opposition in future Russia.
Latent anti-semitism, not obvious on the level of the official programme, but established by the evidence of eyewitnesses.
Notes
Unless one counts the emigre People's Labour Alliance [Narodno-Trudovoi Soiuz — NTS],
In February, 1967, just before it was decimated by the KGB, the All- Russian Social Christian Union for the Liberation of the People [VSKhSON] had 28 members and 30 candidate members.
John Dunlop, The New Russian Revolutionaries, Nordland Press, 1976.
'Vserossiiskii Sotsial'no-Khristianskii Soiuz Osvobo/.hdeniia Naroda' ['All- Russian Social Christian Union for the Liberation of the People'], Paris: YMCA Press, 1975, p. 33.
Ibid., p. 34.
Ibid., p. 61.
Ibid., p. 34.
Ibid., p. 61.
Ibid., d. 64.
Tbid., p. 74.
Ibid., p. 75.
Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 76-8.
Dunlop, op. cit., p. 223.
'One feels safe in predicting that in the coming decade we will witness new variants of VSKhSON's "Program" emerging in Soviet Russia', ibid., p. 198. This prediction has been published precisely a decade ago. Nothing of the sort emerged, however, in Soviet Russia.
Ibid., p. 198.
Ibid., pp. 197 — 8. Emphasis in original.
VSKhSON, pp. 32, 35-6.
Ibid., p. 63. Emphasis added.
Ibid., pp. 32, 61. It is true the programme contains the assertions that 'the non-Communist world will come out of the crisis by an evolutionary process' (p. 33) but this is in such flagrant contradiction to the remaining content that it appears to be an alien element in the programme. How can ' materialistic capitalism while it still remains capitalism — i.e 'refuses God', and does not accept the VSKhSON programme s demand for a 'spiritual struggle for the individual' — pro\ ide the world w ith a 'spiritual rebirth' instead of the satanocracv w hich logically derives from it''
Nikolai Berdiaev, Novoe srednevekov'e [The New Middle Age&fl Berlin Obelisk, 1924.
ibid., pp. 50-1.
Ibid., pp. 27, 53.
Ibid., p 28.
Ibid., p 78.
Dunlop, op cit , p. 62.
N. Berdiaev, Novoe srednevekov'e, p. 62.
N. Berdiaev, The End of Our Time, London: Sheed and Ward Aug and Nov. 1933, Feb. 1935.
VSKhSON, p. 61.
Ibid . p. 73.
Ibid p. 208.
A. A. Petrov-Agatov, 'Arrcstantskie vstrcchi' ['Prisoners' Encounters ], Grani, No. 83, 1972, p. 65.
Ibid., p. 64.
VSKhSON, p. 71.
Ibid., p. 73.
Ibid p. 61.
The 'civil and human rights promised in the programme arc bv no means intended to be introduced immediately after the \ ictory of the VSKhSON. Point 74 states that, 'state power, after the overthrow of the Communist dictatorship, shall pass o\er to a people's revolutionary government which wi'.l immediately effect the radical reforms w hose time has come'; only then 'shall the normal order of the state come into force' (ibid p. 77). But what will become of the intelligentsia in this fateful interval — in the period of dictatorship of a 'people's revolutionary government'5
Ouoted from the transcript of 'A Conversation about Dostoevskii betw een Kiril Khenkin and F.vgenn Vagin over Radio I.ibcrtv.
VSKhSON, p. 73.
Ibidjjpp, 65-6.
'While the society brought into existence [bv VSKhSON] would undoubtedly displease some Western libertarians . . . [nevertheless] were the Program put into effect, Russia would be able to breathe once again. The individual citizen would be free to sclect his profession, write and publish what he wants, move freely about the country, and travel abroad. He would be eligible for public office and could even, without hindrance, attend meetings and demonstrations and form unions, associations, and societies In his family life, he would be free from the long arms of the state . . . (Dunlop, op. cit , pp. 197 — 8).