From: vadik@cs.umd.edu (Vadim Maslov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Anti-democratic intelligentsia?
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:34:45 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Sep15.013239.3418@nas.nasa.gov> bross@splatter.nas.nasa.gov (Bill Ross) writes:
>There is an interesting article in the September 21 New Republic:
>"Kitchen debate (Russia's nationalist intelligentsia)," by L.
>Greenfeld. 

Quite the opposite, the article is mean ideological opus
not worth paper (net bandwidth) on which it is printed.
Let's try to go into details.

>     "In Russia, the intelligentsia always saw itself as an
>     aristocracy. It enjoyed prestige incomparable to that of
>     other groups--a prestige related to its contribution to
>     Russia's international standing. For Russia's greatness
>     was understood, first and foremost, as the greatness of
>     Russian culture, a reflection of the nation's moral
>     superiority, in comparison to which political and economic
>     failings appeared trivial. Literature, in particular, was
>     invested with authority, and for that reason often doubled
>     as social criticism."  In general the intelligentsia "were
>     prepared to play a great role in society and then were denied
>     that role and the status that went with it."

That's not true. Most of `intelligentsia representatives'
are common people without any special pride at all.
This paragraph is just stupid generalization very characteristic
of any propaganda -- US yellowish newspapers propaganda included.
Isn't it obvious that if some people (say, Pasternak, Leo Tolstoy,
Kapitsa, Pavlov, name others) had reasons for feeling that they
are aristocracy, it certainly is not the case with rank-and-file
intelligentsia -- and this word (intelligentsia) doesn't imply only
elite.

So, common `intelligentsia representative' is just `proletariy
umstvennogo truda' (mental proletarian) deprived of any reasons
to feel superior.

>
>     To compensate, other orders of existence emerged. especially
>     "kitchen circles" - friends meeting to discuss - which were
>     regarded as a substitute for public recognition. Kitchen 
>     recognition was based on who one was (belonging) rather than 
>     achievement.  "Significantly, kitchen circles freed one of
>     economic effort as well. In the Soviet economy, the more friends
>     one had, the less money one needed, for the chief economic problem
>     was not the expense of goods, but the difficulty of finding them."

`Kitchen circles' were characteristic for all layers of society.
They are in small villages, and they are at famous Moscow families.
I read/heard that Sakharov was talking to people mostly in his kitchen
-- yeah, in infamous kitchen circle. Kitchen for many Russians is the
same thing as living room for Americans. You know, the place where
people gather together, discuss various matters (not necessarily
politics).

>
>     While 'the system' was the perceived enemy of the kitchen circles, 
>     the concepts of democracy and capitalism were less understood:
>     the real preferred alternative social order was based on the
>     ethic of the circles themselves: 'sobornost' (togetherness) as
>     opposed to Western 'freedom'/individualism. "The ideas of 
>     democracy and capitalism are ... deeply foreign ... They go
>     against the values that form the core of the Russian national
>     consciousness, particularly the belief that the intelligentsia
>     forms a natural social elite, as well as its collectivism and
>     authoritarianism, its otherworldly orientation, its proud
>     irrationality and lack of discipline. These values ... are the
>     basis of the kitchen circles with their warmth and cozy sense
>     of protectedness as much as they were the basis of the political
>     system the kitchen circles aimed to stir."

This is a big lump of shit -- complete in its umcompromising and boring stupidity.
What do you think, if several hundred people talk about 'sobornost' 
and stuff like that, millions will necessarily follow? No.
Millions just don't pay any attention to it.
They live normal lives trying to resolve ECONOMIC and NOT SPIRITUAL
problems. What's more interesting, they're trying to resolve their
own economic problems, not that of whole country.
Do you really think that people in Russia all are imbeciles
interested in all this 'sobornost' (togetherness) /
'freedom'/individualism scrap?

>     "The masses want 'sausage' and the so-called 'democrats' in power
>     have discredited themselves by their patent inability to serve it.
>     The elite want status; democracy they now see, would rob them of
>     it." The anti-democratic values of Russia's nationalism which
>     made communism possible have not been questioned, and it seems
>     quite possible that another non-democratic society will emerge.


The general impression is that author (damochka s diplomami i
aspiraciyami, pishuschaya o russkoi cul'ture ?) heard something
somewhere. Then he/she decided to add some contrast to picture.
And you know, when there is too much contrast in color picture,
you can't see any details, and in general, everything looks differently
from what it was originally. Just like in this article --
there is no even weak resemblance.


Vadim Maslov.

-- 

Vadim Maslov.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet