an interview with beonid Plyushch Q What do you think of the reactions of the Soviet bureaucracy after your release, the reactions manifested in the form of allusions made by some speakers at the twenty-fifth party congress? Al know almost nothing about these reactions, but it's easy enough to predict what they are saying and will continue to say: Plyushch is a schizophrenic who has sold out to the CIA, the Zionists, and the Russian and Ukrainian fascists. Q What do you think should be done to win the release of the political prisoners in the Soviet Union and the other countries of East Europe? A Western public opinion can do a lot for the release of political prisoners if a systematic and broad campaign is developed. But to do this you have to 38 wage the struggle for the release of political prisoners on the basis of moral positions. This will help in drawing in people of the most varied convictions and in going beyond quarrels among organizations. Western public opinion understands that the repression against dissidents in the USSR and Chile is a potential threat to freedom of opinion in all countries. Many of the paragraphs of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can serve as slogans. To these we ought to add the following slogans:
a. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must have the status of law in all member countries of the United Nations.
b. The political prisoners must be released in all countries. As for terrorists and saboteurs, to demand the ir release is contradictory juridically: Such a demand amounts to demanding that governments withdraw. But it is possible and necessary to struggle against the inhuman treatment meted out to terrorists and saboteurs and against the application of the death penalty against anyone. There are many organizations today that are struggling against the persecution of dissidents. But only Amnesty International is struggling for amnesty for political prisoners in all countries. But Amnesty International does so on the basis of moral and juridical positions. We need an international organization that struggles for the democratization of all contries, for the concrete realization of the rights of man to political, religious, economic, and national liberty. During the March 6 and 7 meeting in the Mutualité, * there was a proposal to create such an organization. This proposal was supported by the thousands of people who attended this meeting. A *The reference is to the "days of study" organized by the Organisation Communiste Internationaliste (Internationalist Communist Organization) devoted to the situation in the countries of the East. After these days, the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (Revolutionary Communist League), French section of the Fourth International, published the following statement: "On the occasion of the days of study of the Organisation Communiste Internationaliste, the formation of a committee to defend political prisoners in the countries of the East and West was projected. Among the initial signers of the call for the formation of this committee are Plyushch, Jiri Pelikan, and James Marangé. The platform of the committee constitutes a basis for discussion for the democratic defense of political prisoners. The presence of Plyushch and Pelikan offers a guarantee that such o committee will be broadened to include all components of the workers movement desiring to participate in the mobilization against repression in the USSR and in the people's democracies. The Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire commits itself to the collection of signatures for the launching of the committee, which, as has been shown by the action of the committee of mathematicians, could be very broad, nonexclusive, and as representative as possible."
broad international campaign has to be developed for the creation of such an organization. Q What are the major opposition currents in the Soviet Union? Are there Marxist currents? What do you think of the positions of Ray Medvedev? À The principal division of the opposition in the Soviet Union is the division between the democratic movement and the antidemocratic movement. The chauvinists of all stripes (up to and including the fascists) and certain far-right Christian currents constifute the antidemocratic movement. But it must be noted that numerically these groups constitute only a very small fraction of the opposition. As far as the democratic movement is concerned, it includes democrats who are fighting simply for respect for Soviet law on individual freedom, religious currents that demand freedom of conscience, patriotic currents of the various nationalities, and neo-Marxists, the socialist currents, which are still not very numerous. But it is necessary to stress the much too general and conventional character of these labels. The neo-Marxists are trying to analyze the causes of the defeat of the October Revolution and the other socialist revolutions, to analyze the changes that have occurred in the world since the death of Lenin, and to work out a new action program for Marxists in the USSR. Nevertheless, 1 have not read any serious Marxist programmatic document in the samizdat (self-published) publications. When I was in the USSR I believed, on the basis of what I was able to read, that the Medvedev brothers were honest and consistent Khrushchevists, that is, that they remained fixed on the positions of the twentieth and twenty-second congresses of the CPSU. I have not yet read their recent works, so I don't know about the evolution of their positions. • Do you think it is possible to speak of a crisis of the opposition, and if so, what are the reasons for the crisis? A In fact, there are certain signs of a crisis of the opposition. I see two reasons for it. First, the very severe repression of the opposition by the KGB, a repression that began in 1968 and was stepped up considerably in 1972. Today the Ukrainian resistance has in fact been crushed, but I don't think it will remain so for very long. The second reason is the gap that exists between certain currents and the workers and peasants. Nevertheless, I think that this situation will change for the better relatively soon. O What has been and what is the attitude of the democratic opposition toward the working class? Can one speak of a gap between the opposition and the working class? In your view, what are the prospects for the opposition?
A As a whole, the democratic opposition is conscious of the need to improve the material situation of the workers and peasants and to eliminate the privileges of the bureaucracy. But in the democratic samizdat the main emphasis is placed on demands relating to respect for legality and individual liberty, in a manner that is not justified proportionally. It is an essential insufficiency of the movement, although it is quite correct to think that democratization of the country is the principal task. The majority of democrats, with the exception of the neo-Marxists, ridicule belief in the leading role of the working class. It is difficult to talk about perspectives, and still more difficult to judge the future of this or that political current. I don't want to get involved in the unrewarding task of being a prophet. Those who want to do so can go ahead. • Can one speak of social and political passivity of the working class? If so, why? Isn't this contradictory with the news we have about strikes and clashes with the police that sometime comes out of the USSR? A Yes, the working class in the USSR is very passive. There are many reasons for this. The main one is the absence of organizations expressing the interests and consciousness of the class of workers. The second reason is the absence of traditions of struggle for their interests. The third is common to all classes in the USSR, and that is fear for one's family, fear of losing a good job, fear of the prisons and the camps. The fourth reason is a deep distrust of all propaganda and all agitation. Workers strikes and demonstrations in the USSR are very rare. They are evidence only of discontent against the regime and not of activity on the part of the workers. Q In the West the youth are in the vanguard of the revolutionary movement. How do you see the present situation of Soviet youth, both workers and students? What is the attitude of youth toward the bureaucratic regime? A The youth constitute an important part of the religious and national movements. Unfortunately, this is also true of the fascist currents (pro-Soviet and anti-Soviet). Also unfortunately, there are not very many youth in the democratic movement properly so called. This is explained by the fact that the religious and national movements are in large measure emotional movements. Disgust for official ideology rebounds on ideologies that imply not emotions but a logic, an analysis, and programs. The attitude of the greatest part of the youth toward the bureaucratic regime is either an atfitude of disgust (conscious or unconscious) or indifference.
39
USSR Q Socialism also means the liberation of women, Can one speak of liberation of women in the USSR? Can one speak of specific forms of oppression of women? A As far as the specific features of the exploitation -of women in the USSR are concerned, there is an absolutely remarkable article by a Ukrainian patriot, Evgeny Sverstiuk, called "For the Celebration of Woman. " (E. Sverstiuk is presently in a camp in Mordovia.) I can offer you my opinion on the subject briefly. In the work place, women are equal to men. They get equal wages and have full possibilities for promotion on the job. Among the highest bureaucrats, men predominate. Unfortunately, equality on the job has an opposite side. Women are also employed for hard physical labor. Daily problems and children fake up almost all the free time women have. So the formal equality of opportunity for intellectual training turns out to be inequality in practice. So from this standpointy women are discriminated against. Q One gets the impression that the national question is one of the major contradictions of bureaucratic society today. What do you think of this? Whatare the reasons for it? What perspectives do you see? What is the link, in your view, between the national question and the struggle against the bureaucracy? A The national question is one of the most complex problems in the USSR. You have to make a distinction between spiritual oppression and material oppression of nationalities. Spiritually, one can say that the Soviet government consciously and unconsciously pursues the policy of Tsarism. The Russification of culture and the falsification of the history of all peoples (including the Russian people) are some of the aspects of this policy. Behind verbal internationalism lurks great Russian chauvinism. One of the most repugnant manifestotions of this chauvinism is anti-Semitism, which is applied under the pretext of anti-Zionism (under Stalin it was called the "struggle against cosmopolitanism"), but also the deportation of the Crimean Tatars, the Meskhets, and the Black Sea Greeks, deportations which Stalin carried out by accusing these peoples of "treason to the fatherland. " Can a whole people be traitors? Traitors to whom? To the Russian people? Materially, it does not seem to me that there has been specific national oppression, with the exception of the Jews, who have difficulty getting into institutions of higher education and to posts of responsibility. On the contrary, certain peoples live better than the Russian people. The reasons for bureaucratic great-power chauvinism are complex, and it is not possible to analyze them in an interview. Lenin had already denounced the germs of this chauvinism.
The bureaucracy is the essential source of this greatpower chauvinism. The nationalism and chauvinism of the non-Russian peoples is a reaction to this. The role of the bureaucracy in this chauvinist policy is more and more understood by non-Russian patriots. Also, it seems to me that the struggle of nations for their self-determination will take on an increasingly antibureaucratic character, fusing with the democratic movement. I would like to add one more thing. Bureaucratic nationalism is reflected in the consciousness of the popular masses, Contempt and hatred for other peoples is developing. One of the arguments of narrow Soviet nationalism is this: "We feed them all, we defend them all, but they're a bunch of ingrates." This is one of the reasons why many people hailed the invasion of Czechoslovakia. The belief that "we are the best" is repugnant and leads to national messianism. Q How will the new five-year plan affect the standard of living of the popular masses? Al think that the difficulties of bureaucratic management of the economy will increase, and this will obviously have consequences on the standard of living of the popular masses. Q How would you envisage relations among people in the future socialist society? Al am not a great believer in futurology, although it appears to be a necessary science, It is difficult and risky to predict what the future society will be like. The best evocation of communist society is found in Marx, in the Philosophical and Economic Manuscripts of 1844. But the description is simultaneously complicated and brief. Socialist society will be something in between capitalism and communism. Thus, human relationships in this society will have both features of the new society and features of the old, inhuman society. Do you think a gradual democratization of Soviet society is possible? Al hope so. • Do you think that a wing of the Soviet bureaucracy is favorable to a democratization of Soviet society and is capable of carrying this out? ANo, I don't think so. Q Do you think that the twenty-fifth party congress means a strengthening of the present leading team? Al don't know.