From: verbit@widder.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Anti-democratic intelligentsia?
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:33:39 GMT
Organization: Sozialistische Patienten Kollektiv


Bill Ross posted the summary of a article appeared in New Respublic
(thank you for pointer, Bill), and Vadim Maslov was appaled by a 
controversity of the issue. My own reaction was quite different:
I considered this article as a highly constructive criticism
(though it is far from explicit or exact). Here it goes:


In article <60328@mimsy.umd.edu> vadik@cs.umd.edu (Vadim Maslov) writes:
>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.

	I am sure bandwidth is saved by 300 articles with
	criticism of Patricia Shvarts. 

>>     "In Russia, the intelligentsia always saw itself as an
>>     aristocracy. 

That's right, I always saw myself and my friends (eg, ones
who graduated from 57 school) as arystocracy. I know that's
wrong morally, but that's the way it is.

>>	It enjoyed prestige incomparable to that of
>>     other groups--a prestige related to its contribution to
>>     Russia's international standing. 

That's right too, we *do* enjoy prestige related to our
contributions. Who does not?

>>	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."

Yeah, that was true from the times of Tchernyshevsky and Plekhanov.
Read Solzhenytsyn "Mart 17" about kadets

>That's not true. Most of `intelligentsia representatives'
>are common people without any special pride at all.

Look at the definition of intelligentsia in Enc. Brit. :)
Common people were "proletarii umstv. truda", not intelligentsia.

>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.

Shit, the "proletarii umstv. truda" is a derogatory term!
Usually used as an insult from "intelligentsia" to the people
who are not considered as one (like, say, clercks or party bosses).
Vadim, if you don't understand this insult you are clearly
"proletarii umstvennogo truda", but not "intelligent" in Russian sense.

>>     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).

Vadim is right, as well as Greenfeld. There is no contradiction there.

>>     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.

	Vadim, are you drunk today? Several hundreds of people
	were spoken about Communism. Lo and behold - Communism
	is there! BTW, they were also from "intelligentsia".

>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?

	They were imbeciles interested in Communism for some
	time, as I recall from school course of history...
	There is a life besides economy, Vadim. Besides
	sausages and Volgas, that is. Something only true
	Marxist cannot understand. Are you one :)?

>>     "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.

Sure, there is a possibility, and a good one. General impression
is that the author (being somewhat sketchy) understands tha matter
better than Russian self-taught marxists. As it usually happens
with foreigners, they could get the fresh impression, while
native brains are dulled by stale knowledge.

>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.

Ne Vadim Maslov

--

Ne Vadim Maslov

--

Misha Verbiisky

--

Misha Verbiisky


--

Misha Verbiisky
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,talk.politics.soviet