[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.The title was The Teaching of the Slavophils the Highest Achievement ofNational Consciousness in Russia in the Pre-Leninist Period , and its author wasthe Fetisovite Mikhail F.Antonov (born 1927; see p.85).Successive parts ofthis article appeared in the second and third issues of Veche, comprising over aquarter of the total number of pages of the first three issues.73In the first part, Antonov attacked those who, from the Westernizers of thenineteenth century to the contributors to the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, linkedSlavophilism to official narodnost.Paradoxically, he also claimed thatNicholas I himself had sympathies with Slavophilism, which he was politicallyunable to express.74 Expounding Khomiakov s views, Antonov praised him for his92 BREZHNEV ERA: DISSIDENT RUSSIAN MESSIANISMopposition to liumpenstvo, which Antonov identified with the tendency to fawnbefore the West, and for his support for Russian customs.In this contextAntonov approvingly cited Vladimir Soloukhin s attempts to rediscover Russiantraditions, which had led to his being accused of rusofil stvo and of abandoningproletarian internationalism.75 The first part of Antonov s article was followedby a rejoinder by A.S. , presumably Ivanov-Skuratov.This drew attention tothe lack of clarity of the term liumpenstvo as used by Antonov, and to the naivepeasant belief in the good Tsar, surrounded by evil gentry , which was found inFetisovite writings.76 The editorial board issued statements that it was not inagreement with Antonov s views,77 and that the article was being printed without the sanction of the author (in blocks).78In the second part, Antonov discussed Khomiakov s views on philosophy,religion, the Slavs and the obshchina, and announced: Again and again we haveto underline one thought: in the obshchina is the essence of Russia, the Russianpeople and Leninism. 79 This last word explained why A.S., in his earlierrejoinder, had criticized Antonov for portraying Lenin as seeing the regenerationof Russia coming from the village rather than the town.80 Antonov s final part(considerably shortened, according to an editorial note) outlined the views of theKireevsky brothers.Emphasizing the need to return to Russian ways, hecondemned the contemporary attempt of rootless and cosmopolitan elements todestroy the old centre of Moscow and make it a copy of European capitals.The idea of Moscow as the Third Rome, as the New Jerusalem, as theembodiment of Lenin s highest Truth and Justice on Earth this is whatought to lie& as the basis of the General Plan for the Reconstruction andDevelopment of Moscow.81Ivan Kireevsky could not link the teachings of the Church Fathers with changesin Russian life; only Lenin could do this.An adequate Russian ideology couldcome only from the unification of Orthodoxy and Leninism.Communistmorality would benefit from an infusion of the teachings proceeding from thedeepest origins of Russian life.In a discussion which contained no analysis ofLenin s real ideas, Antonov declared: Leninism has incomparably more incommon with Orthodoxy and the Slavophils than with Marxism-Catholicism. 82A major article spanning three issues, attributed later to Ivanov-Skuratov,praised the achievements of Gen.M.D.Skobelev in the 1877 8 Russo-Turkish Warand the conquest of Central Asia.83 This ran alongside a pro-messianist viewpointput by the anonymous author of Thoughts-Projectors , which argued thatRussia s sufferings gave her a special position in the world.Russia is hated, Russia is accused, Russia is said to be going to perish&But all the same the main thing is that Russia is not understood.All thejudgements about her are human conjecture.Russia is the greatest sufferer, slandered and crucified.84BREZHNEV ERA: DISSIDENT RUSSIAN MESSIANISM 93A comparison between Israel and Russia was made in No.7 by I.Starozhubaev. The springing-up of Russian nationalism in the sense of self-defence and self-preservation is a natural desire for today. He attacked cosmopolitanism, andthose shouting for freedom and democracy; he spoke instead of thebroad Russian soul and of messianism Russia saving all mankind through herexample.His main theme was that Russian nationalism was defensive.85Ivanov-Skuratov wrote two articles on Solzhenitsyn s August 1914, accusinghim of being pro-German and anti-Russian in his portrayal of the collapse of theRussian Army.86 The fifth issue carried further discussion of the novel87 andcontained two chapters of the memoirs of Solzhenitsyn s first wife, NataliaReshetovskaia; and the ninth contained two new chapters from Solzhenitsyn sFirst Circle.88 The Veche editors were clearly split in their attitude toSolzhenitsyn.Osipov was ideologically close to him, as later became clear in hisresponse to Solzhentsyn s Letter to the Soviet Leaders, but Ivanov-Skuratov andthe gosudarstvenniki considered him to be anti-Soviet
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]