From: sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Communism as a Russian guilt (racist conception)
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:26:16 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.soviet
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec17.224154.18651@husc3.harvard.edu> verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:
>In article <kosinov.724631372@ceg.uiuc.edu> kosinov@ceg.uiuc.edu (Greg Kosinovsky) writes:

>>  The fact is that the ONLY none- or anti- Communist groups tolerated
>>during the Brezhnev era were Russian nationalists. Witness the continuous
>>publication of Nash Sovremennik throughout that time. It may not have been
>>as virulent back then, but its ideological gist was as clear as it is now.
>>  Now try to imagine reading a Jewish-nationalist, a pro-Western-democratic-
>>dissident, or, for that matter Estonian-nationalist publication openly at that
>>time, and you will understand how silly this overstatement is, and also
>>how insulting it may be to those people who were prosecuted UNLIKE, rather
>>then LESS than Russian nationalists.
					      Greg.

>I prefer to readdress the answering on this to some 
>Russian patriot on the net (Sergei Borodin, au!),
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Sounds like you're swearing :-).  Anyway, the stupidity of the original
  posting is so obvious that I desided to ignore it first time.  Respecting
  your call I'd try to answer.  First of all, I witnessed `the continuous
  publications of Nash Sovremennik'.  As I understand, Mr. Kosinovsky considers
  "derevenschiki", who mainly were published by the magaszine at Brezhnev's
  time,  as "Russian nationalists" -- how else would he call a writer, who
  describes *Russian* but not "international" country life, and shows all
  troubles *Russian* people have to overcome.  Of course Mr. Kosinovsky doesn't
  like it. And it's obvious - why. Because other "problems" imposed by so called
  "fighters for freedom of emigration" look faded, dont't they?
  Now, despite publications of the magazine, which, in fact, have *nothing*
  to do with "Russian nationalism" (at least at that time), Mr. Kosinovsky
  doesn't offer any single fact of the tolerance of "Russian nationalists"
  by Soviets.  
  Phrase "try to imagine reading a Jewish-nationalist ..." is silly. As
  Misha correctly pointed out, try to imagine reading REAL Russian nationalists.
   Tried?           
  Isn't it stupid to compare "nationalist"
  Astafiev with a nationalist like Zhabotinsky. Can Mr. Kosinovsky imagine 
  reading let's say Berdiaev, or better yet, Shulgin in ANY magazine at that time?
  
  The word which comletely describes the article of Mr. Kosinovsky - at least
  I can't find a better one - is bullshit. Can any one find a better word?

> but 
>anyway I don't think you are right.

  Me either.

> To call Brezhnev's Nash
>Sovremennik Russian nationalistic is no more valid than to call,
>say, Novyi Mir or Novyi Put' (or how the Yiddish magazine
>was called) Zionistic. 

  "Znamja" - I think, at least now.

>The *real* nationalistic or monarchistic
>dissident activity (like the _Veche_ samizdat magazine)
>was persecuted more heavily than ordinary dissident activity.

  They must have been persecuted more heavily. Obviously, the population
  wouldn't care about "otkazniks" (I don't), but rather calls to a 
  "Russian soul" could have been understood better, which are more 
  dangerous to the Party than a bunch of people looking for better life.

>The reason is very simple: authorities saw more populist potential
>in "bei zhidov spasai Rossiyu" dissidents than in usual
>"human right above all" ones.

  Well, if you define Russian nationalism as "bei zhidov" (I don't),
  I agree.

>Misha.

 Serezha.