Report on open letters to power from Soviet dissidents. Methods of the dissident movement. Lighting in the West

Dissidents (from Latin dissidens - dissenter) - persons who disagree with official socio-political doctrines and principles political structure, domestic and foreign policy of the USSR. They acted individually and in small groups, sometimes expressing disagreement openly, but more often resorting to illegal methods. Dissidence as a social phenomenon represented a spectrum of social organizations and movements, literary trends, art schools, a set of individual dissident actions. A certain unity was given to dissidence as a social phenomenon by the active rejection of the established order in the country and the desire for freedom and human rights.

The most important concepts for understanding the phenomenon of dissidence are ideas about public associations, mass psychology, public consciousness, ideological trends and directions of social thought. According to modern ideas(see, for example, the current Federal Law “On Public Associations” of May 19, 1995), a public association is a formation created on the initiative of citizens united on the basis of common interests to realize common goals formulated in the relevant documents. A variety of associations are public organizations (membership-based public associations created on the basis of joint activities to protect common interests and achieve the statutory goals of united citizens) and social movements(public associations consisting of participants and non-members pursuing social, political and other socially beneficial goals supported by participants in the movement). The emergence of associations is preceded by the activity of thinkers and ideologists who give birth to socially significant ideas and systems of ideas about public interests, goals and methods of achieving them. The condition for the emergence and activity of associations is the appropriate state public consciousness, public sentiments and aspirations that shape social thought, its currents and directions.

Dissidence began to attract attention after the 20th Congress of the CPSU (1956), in conditions of liberalization of the regime, when dissent (mainly representatives of the intelligentsia) received some opportunities for manifestation. Opposition sentiments were largely stimulated by the publication of N.S.’s report. Khrushchev “On the personality cult of Stalin”, the letter of the CPSU Central Committee to party organizations “On strengthening the political work of party organizations among the masses and suppressing the attacks of anti-Soviet, hostile elements” (dated December 19, 1956) and similar “closed letters”, which, in order condemnations, operated with numerous examples of manifestations of discontent and rejection of the Soviet-communist system.

The first manifestations of legal dissidence in the literary environment include V. Dudintsev’s book “Not by Bread Alone” (1956), K. Paustovsky’s speech in its defense, O. Berggolts’ speech against the resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on issues of literature and art adopted in 1946-1948 Public manifestations of dissidence were the reading of poetry (usually not accepted for publication in Soviet censored publications) at meetings of nonconformist youth at the monument to V.V. Mayakovsky in Moscow (1958-1961, active participants V.N. Osipov, E.S. Kuznetsov, I.V. Bokshtein).

Since the second half of the 1950s. V different cities Dissident underground organizations arose, numbering up to a dozen people. In Moscow - "Russian National Party", or "People's Democratic Party of Russia" (1955-1958, organizer V.S. Polenov and others), "Russian National Socialist Party" (1956-1958, A .A. Dobrovolsky). In Leningrad - a circle led by student V.I. Trofimova (1956-1957) and others. The activities of the organizations were suppressed by the KGB.

At the end of 1956 - beginning of 1957, a Marxist group was formed at the history department of Moscow State University under the leadership of L.N. Krasnopevtseva. Its participants tried to create a new concept of the history of the CPSU and a new ideology. In the spring of 1957 they established contact with Polish oppositionists. Wrote historical notes about the USSR as an obstacle to the progress of civilization. They opposed “Stalinist socialism” and for the creation of workers’ self-government. In July 1957, leaflets were distributed demanding a trial of Stalin's accomplices, strengthening the role of the Soviets, the right of workers to strike, and the abolition of Article 58 of the Criminal Code. In February 1958, nine members of this circle were sentenced to 6-10 years in prison for “anti-Soviet” activities.

In 1956-1957 in Leningrad there was a circle of the young Leningrad mathematician R.I. Pimenova. Its participants established connections with other youth circles in Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk, and tried to consolidate their activities. In September 1957 five members of the circle were convicted of “creating an illegal group from students of the library institute for organized struggle against the existing system,” and in fact for distributing leaflets against uncontested elections.

In October 1958, the activities of a group of Leningrad University graduates led by M.M. were suppressed. Molostvov. They were arrested for the contents of correspondence that they had between themselves, for discussing the possibility of creating an organization and a manuscript on ways to reform socialism.

In the fall of 1963, Major General P.G. Grigorenko, later a prominent participant in the human rights movement, and several of his supporters distributed leaflets in Moscow and Vladimir on behalf of the Union of Struggle for the Revival of Leninism.

In 1962-1965. In Leningrad there was an underground Marxist League of Communards. She was guided by the program “From the dictatorship of the bureaucracy - to the dictatorship of the proletariat” (L., 1962, authors V.E. Ronkin, S.D. Khakhaev), distributed leaflets calling for a revolutionary struggle against the Soviet bureaucracy, the samizdat magazine “Kolokol” (L. ., 1965).

The most numerous of all underground dissident organizations (28 members, 30 candidates) was the Leningrad “All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of the People” (1964-1967, led by I.V. Ogurtsov), which intended to offer the country Orthodox-soil values ​​with the corresponding state structure.

Underground circles also operated in Saratov ("Group of Revolutionary Communism", O.M. Senin and others, 1966-1970), Ryazan (group of Yu.V. Woodka, 1967-1969), Gorky (group of V. I. Zhiltsova, 1967-1970). Their participants were most often inspired by social democratic ideals, but in practical activities they were guided by general democratic and liberal values, and established contacts with the openly active movement for human rights in Moscow and other cities. In yet to a greater extent this can be said about the “Union of Struggle for Democratic Rights” (G. Gavrilov), opened in Tallinn in 1969, which published the samizdat magazine “Democrat” in Russian and Estonian, and the “Estonian Democratic Movement” (1970-1974, led by . S.I. Soldatov).

At the end of the 70s. In Moscow, a circle of “liberal communists” was formed, grouped around the samizat magazines “Searching” (M., 1978-1979. No. 1-8), “Searching and Reflections” (1980. No. 1-4). Their editors and authors (P.M. Abovin-Egides, V.F. Abramkin, R.B. Lert, G.O. Pavlovsky, V.L. Gershuni, Yu.L. Grimm, V.V. Sokirko, M J. Gefter, P.A. Podrabinek and others) were people of predominantly left-wing socialist views, supporters of the liberalization of the Soviet system and the expansion of freedoms in it. They tried to carry out a synthesis of ideas that could form the basis for a smooth reform of the system and at the same time gain the support of at least part of Soviet society, including the reformist wing of the ruling elite. V.V. occupied a special position in the circle. Sokirko, who was also the author, compiler and editor of the samizdat collection “In Defense of Economic Freedoms” (M., 1978-1979. Issue 1-6). He proposed forming a bourgeois-liberal party that would act as an opponent of the CPSU for the development of economic freedoms, for a kind of “bourgeois-communist”, “very liberal and communist future society.”

At the end of the 1970s. a group of “Soviet Eurocommunists” (A.V. Fadin, P.M. Kudyukin, B.Yu. Kagarlitsky and others) operated in Moscow. The group published "samizdat" magazines "Options" (M., 1977-1982), "Left Turn" (M., 1978-1980), "Socialism and the Future" (M., 1981-1982). In April 1982, the “young socialists” were arrested, but the trial scheduled for February 12, 1983 did not take place. It was canceled thanks to the intercession of foreign communist parties and the reluctance of Yu. V. Andropov to begin his “reign” with a high-profile trial. Was not given of great importance and the case of V.K. Demina, equipment in the Museum of Oriental Arts, which in 1982-1984. wrote and distributed the manuscript “Unicapitalism and Social Revolution”, as well as program documents for the RSDLP - “Revolutionary Social Democratic Party”.

The development of dissidence was largely facilitated by “tamizdat” - publication abroad with subsequent popularization by foreign radio broadcasting and dissemination in the USSR of works created outside the framework of socialist realism, uncensored literary works: B.L. Parsnip. Doctor Zhivago (1958); HELL. Sinyavsky. The trial is underway (1959), Lyubimov (1963); V.S. Grossman. Life and Fate (1959), Everything Flows (1963); Yu.M. Daniel. Moscow Speaks (1961), Atonement (1963), etc. Within the USSR, “samizdat” was distributed - production on typewriters in several copies, with subsequent reprinting of dissident materials and documents.

The first samizdat literary magazine was "Syntax" (M., 1959-1960, ed. A.I. Ginzburg). Three issues were published, the circulation of which reached 300 copies. It consisted of poems by Moscow and Leningrad poets, whose publications encountered obstacles from censorship. In No. 1 of the magazine (December 1959) A. Aronov, N. Glazkov, G. Sapgir, I. Kholin, S. Chudakov were published; in No. 2 (February 1960) - A. Avrusin, B. Akhmadulina, B. Okudzhava, V. Shestakov; in No. 3 (April 1960) - D. Bobyshev, I. Brodsky, A. Kushner, V. Uflyand and others. All issues were reprinted in the Entees magazine "Grani" (1965. No. 58). Two more issues were partially prepared (the 4th was dedicated to Leningrad poetry, the 5th to poets of the Baltic republics). However, with the arrest of Ginzburg (July 1960), the publication of Syntax ceased.

“Syntax” was followed by other “samizdat” almanacs and magazines, and in 1964, a group of young Moscow writers led by L. Gubanov created an unofficial association of creative youth SMOG (transcript: Most Young Society Geniuses; Courage, Thought, Image, Depth; Condensed Moment of Reflected Hyperbole) In July 1965, the smogists published the magazine "Sphinxes" (Moscow, 1965, ed. V.Ya. Tarsis), in the same year its contents were reproduced by "Grani" (N 59). The magazine published poems by V. Aleinikov, V. Batshev, S. Morozov, Yu. Vishnevskaya and others. Samizdat collections of smogists were also published: “Hello, we are geniuses,” “Avant-garde” (M., 1965), “Chu!” (M., 1965), etc. The society existed until April 14, 1966, when the last performance of SMOG took place at the monument to Mayakovsky. After this, the members of the association marched from Mayakovsky Square to the Central House of Writers, raising over their heads the shocking slogan “We will deprive socialist realism innocence!"

In February 1966, the founder of the Sphinxes magazine, who had gone to England, was deprived of Soviet citizenship. In the same year, a trial was held in Moscow of Daniel and Sinyavsky, charged under Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda aimed at undermining or weakening Soviet power.” 22 letters from the “public” were received in defense of the accused. They were signed by 80 people, mainly members of the Writers' Union.

The most famous events in the history of liberal dissidence were the trial of 21 participants in the All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of the People (February-December 1967) and the release of the “samizdat” human rights bulletin “Chronicle of Current Events” (M., 1968-1983. N 1-64 ). Its compilers (N.E. Gorbanevskaya and others) sought to record all cases of violation of human rights in the USSR, as well as speeches in their defense. The chronicle contained information about national movements ( Crimean Tatars, Meskhovs, Balts), religious (Orthodox, Baptists), etc.

In the dissidence of the social democratic trend, the brothers R.A. were most famous. and Zh.A. Medvedevs. They believed that all the shortcomings of the socio-political system stem from Stalinism, are the result of a distortion of Marxism-Leninism, and saw the main task in the “purification of socialism.” Beginning in 1964, R. Medvedev published a monthly samizdat magazine, which was later published in the West under the name “Political Diary” (M., 1964-1970. N 1-70). Each issue was printed on a typewriter in a circulation of up to 40 copies and distributed among “reliable” people. The magazine had correspondents and authors in research institutes in Moscow and even in the Central Committee of the CPSU (among them was E. Frolov, a senior employee of the Kommunist magazine). The magazine reflected attitudes to various events in the country and abroad. As A. Sakharov put it, it was “a mysterious publication... something like samizdat for senior officials.” Later, the almanac “XX Century” (“Voices of the Socialist Opposition in the Soviet Union”) was published (M., 1976-1977, No. 1-3). It was published by the publishing house created by R. and Zh. Medvedev abroad, translated into Italian, Japanese, English and French languages. The almanac was a collection of works Soviet authors(R. Medvedev, M. Maksudov, A. Krasikov, A. Zimin, A. Bekhmetyev, N. Pestov, M. Bogin, M. Yakubovich, L. Kopelev, S. Elagin, etc.) about problems Soviet history and modernity, Western and Eastern democracy, etc. R. Medvedev did not recognize the human rights movement (considered it an “extremist opposition”), hoped that the socialist movement would become widespread and would allow the implementation of a serious program of democratic reforms in the USSR, and subsequently (at the beginning XXI century) - a classless communist society. However, R. Medvedev was expelled from the party in 1969 “for views incompatible with party membership,” his brother Zhores, the author of an exposé book about T.D. Lysenko, who wrote critically about the state of science in the USSR, was forcibly placed in a psychiatric hospital in May 1970. As a result of protests by representatives of the intelligentsia (P.L. Kapitsa, A.D. Sakharov, I.L. Knunyants, A.T. Tvardovsky, M.I. Romm, etc.) he was released, but in 1973 he was deprived of Soviet citizenship, expelled from the country. After the entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia, the social democratic trend began to lose its supporters. Academician A.D. is also disappointed in him. Sakharov, who took one of the key roles in dissidence after the publication in “samizdat” in June 1968 of the work “Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom” (the liberal-Western program of the movement).

On the development of dissidence in the late 60s. The demonstration of protest against the entry of troops into Czechoslovakia and the trial (October 1968) of its participants, the expulsion in November 1969 of A.I., had a significant impact. Solzhenitsyn from the Union of Writers of the USSR for the publication in the West of the novels “In the First Circle” and “Cancer Ward”, awarding him the Nobel Prize in Literature (1970).

Solzhenitsyn's "Nobel Lecture" became an expression of the liberal pochvennik trend in the movement. In this regard, he wrote: “When in the Nobel lecture I said in the most general terms: Nations are the wealth of humanity...” it was received with universal approval... But I barely concluded that this also applies to the Russian people, that also and he has the right to national identity, to national revival after a severe and severe illness, this was furiously declared to be great-power nationalism." The writer repeatedly defined his ideology not as nationalism, but as national patriotism.

In the summer of 1970, 12 people were arrested at the ramp of a passenger plane flying from Leningrad to Priozersk, intending to hijack and use the plane to fly to Israel. The trial of the “airmen” who unsuccessfully sought permission to emigrate ended with severe sentences for the instigators of this action and arrests of Zionist youth in a number of cities across the country. The court attracted the attention of the world community to the problem of freedom of exit from the USSR. Thanks to this, the authorities had to increase the number of exit permits every year. In total, from 1971 to 1986, more than 255 thousand adults emigrated from the USSR abroad (including children, over 360 thousand). Almost 80% of all emigrants were persons Jewish nationality who automatically received refugee status upon entry into the United States and Canada. According to censuses, the size of the Jewish population in the USSR decreased from 2151 thousand people in 1970 to 1154 thousand in 1989, in Russia (2002) - to 230 thousand.

The "Plane Trial" attracted the attention of the authorities and the public to the problem of Jewish nationalism and Zionism as one of the forms of its expression. When developing the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination in 1973, representatives of some states at the UN tried to condemn anti-Semitism, but objected to the proposal of the Soviet delegation to classify both anti-Semitism and Zionism as racial discrimination. Nevertheless, on November 10, 1975, the UN adopted a resolution determining that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” After the abolition of the USSR, the resolution was canceled.

The trial of the plane hijackers showed that a significant part of the “human rights activists” used the human rights idea to cover up militant nationalism and other ideas far from human rights. However, it was in the 70s. The human rights movement is becoming one of the main components of the dissident movement. In November 1970 V.N. Chalidze created the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights, which included prominent scientists A.D. Sakharov and I.R. Shafarevich. The committee operated until 1973. In 1973, the Russian section of Amnesty International arose.

In the summer of 1972, P.I. was arrested. Yakir and V.A. Krasin. Those arrested agreed to cooperate with investigators. The result was a wide wave of new arrests and a noticeable decline in the dissident movement. Its new rise is largely associated with the appearance in the West in 1973, and then in “samizdat”, of Solzhenitsyn’s “experience” artistic research"state repressive system called "The Gulag Archipelago".

September 5, 1973 A.I. Solzhenitsyn wrote "Letter to the Leaders" Soviet Union", in which he proposed a way out of the main, in his opinion, dangers that threatened us in the next 10-30 years: war with China and common death in an environmental catastrophe with Western civilization. It was proposed to abandon Marxist ideology, “give it to China” and ourselves, according to Stalin's experience from the first days Patriotic War, unfurl “the old Russian banner, partly even the Orthodox banner,” and not repeat the mistakes of the end of the war, when “they again pulled the Advanced Teaching out of mothballs.” It was also proposed to transfer all the efforts of the state from external tasks to internal ones: to abandon vodka as the most important item of state income, and from many types of industrial production with toxic waste; be freed from compulsory universal military service; focus on the construction of dispersed cities, recognize that for the foreseeable future, not a democratic, but an authoritarian system is necessary for Russia.

After studying the letter, the authorities in January 1974 decided to prosecute the writer “for malicious anti-Soviet activities,” and then deprive him of citizenship and expel him from the country. The writer was arrested, placed in Lefortovo prison, and on February 13 he was sent abroad. In Switzerland, he founded the Russian Fund for Assistance to Prisoners, the first manager of which was A.I., who was released from prison. Ginsburg. There was someone to help. For 1967-1974 729 dissidents were brought to criminal liability for anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. In 1976, there were about 850 political prisoners in the USSR, 261 of them for anti-Soviet propaganda.

In 1974 A.D. Sakharov wrote the work “Anxiety and Hope,” which presented a vision of the future of world civilization, possible only if a global nuclear confrontation is prevented. The best way To avoid this, he believed the convergence of the two systems. “I believe,” he wrote, that it is especially important to overcome the disintegration of the world into antagonistic groups of states, the process of rapprochement (convergence) of the socialist and capitalist systems, accompanied by demilitarization, strengthening of international trust, protection of human rights, law and freedom, deep social progress and democratization, strengthening of moral , the spiritual personal principle in man. I assume that the economic system that arose as a result of this process of convergence must be a mixed economy." Considering that the volume of gross output of the Soviet economy was 12% of the world (and almost all of it was capitalist), this meant, first of all, transformations in the USSR. The opinions of the “father of the hydrogen bomb” made a great impression in the country and the world. M.S. Gorbachev eventually made them the basis of the state’s domestic and foreign policy, believing it possible to begin convergence unilaterally.

In December 1975 A.D. Sakharov became the third Soviet dissident to be awarded the Nobel Prize. This act, along with the expulsion from the country of A.I. Solzhenitsyn (February 1974), brought wide international fame to the dissident movement in the USSR, and, accordingly, influence on the masses in his country. Later, the dissident poet I.A., convicted in Leningrad in February 1964 for “malicious parasitism,” became the Nobel Prize laureate. Brodsky. In 1972, he emigrated to the USA, where he continued to write (in Russian and English) poetry, which brought him this prize (1987).

After the conclusion of the Helsinki Agreements, the Moscow Group for Assistance in Implementing the Humanitarian Articles of these agreements was created (May 1976). It included Corresponding Member of the Armenian Academy of Sciences Yu.F. Orlov (leader) and 10 more people: L.M. Alekseeva, M.S. Bernshtam, E.G. Bonner and others. Soon similar groups arose in Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania and Armenia. In January 1977, a working commission was formed under the Moscow Helsinki Group to investigate the use of psychiatry for political purposes, one of the founders of which was A.P. Podrabinek. In February 1977, faced with the prospect of expanding opposition, the authorities moved on to repression against members of the Helsinki groups.

The authorities believed that one of the main dangers to the state came from dissidents. In an effort to dampen the tensions in public life that had intensified with the beginning of the participation of Soviet troops in the civil war in Afghanistan, they intensified repression against dissidents. At the end of 1979 - beginning of 1980, almost all the leaders and active participants of not only human rights, but also national and religious organizations opposition to the authorities were arrested and exiled. HELL. Sakharov was deprived of government awards for speaking out against the war in Afghanistan and exiled to Gorky (January 1980). A year and a half later, Deputy Chairman of the KGB S.K. Tsvigun announced from the pages of the magazine "Communist" (1981. No. 14) that the antisocial elements masquerading as champions of democracy had been neutralized and the human rights movement had ceased to exist.

In the 60-80s. In dissidence, the current of Russian liberal national-patriotic thought was noticeable, making itself felt mainly in “samizdat” journalism, which was a kind of response to “samizdat” of a liberal-cosmopolitan sense. The first text of Russian “nationalists” that became known to the general public was “The Word of the Nation,” written on December 31, 1970 by A.M. Ivanov (Skuratov) as a response to the anonymous “Program of the Democratic Movement of the Soviet Union”, which appeared in 1969.

The main issue for Russia in the Slovo is the national question. It was stated that Russians play a disproportionately small role in the life of the country. The situation should have been changed by a national revolution under the slogan “United Indivisible Russia”, which would have turned the Russian people into a dominant nation. In the national state that had to be built, the traditional Russian religion must take its rightful place of honor.

An important event in the Russian liberal-patriotic movement was the appearance of the magazine "Veche", which was also a kind of response to dissident liberal and national publications. The initiator of the publication was V.N. Osipov, who served 7 years in a strict camp regime for organizing “anti-Soviet gatherings” on Mayakovsky Square in Moscow in 1960-1961. and settled in 1970 in Alexandrov. The magazine was intended to be loyal to the authorities (the editor's name and address were on the cover).

The first issue of the magazine was published on January 19, 1971. Almost immediately the magazine was labeled a chauvinistic anti-Semitic publication. In this regard, the editors issued a statement on March 1, which said: “We resolutely reject the definition of the magazine as “extremely chauvinistic”... We are by no means going to belittle the dignity of other nations. We only want to strengthen the Russian national culture, patriotic traditions in the spirit of the Slavophiles and Dostoevsky, affirmation of the identity and greatness of Russia. As for political problems, they are not within the scope of our magazine." The number of regular readers of the magazine was approximately 200-300 people. It was sent to 14 cities of Russia, as well as Kiev and Nikolaev. One of the circles of the "Veche" were the "Young Guards" , members of the "Russian Club". The degree of their involvement in the publication of the magazine was limited to the topic of protecting historical and cultural monuments, and some financial support.

Most a bright spokesman Russian ideology in relation to new conditions was G.M. Shimanov, who published the book “Notes from the Red House” (1971) in the West. The publicist exposed the root of world evil (and the tragedy of Russia), seeing it in the catastrophic dead end of Western civilization, which essentially abandoned Christianity and replaced the fullness of spiritual life with the false splendor of material well-being. He believed that the fate of Russia is not only its fate, but that of all humanity, which will be able to get out of the impasse, relying on the traditional spiritual values ​​of the Russian people. Russians need to unite on their spiritual foundations. And in this unification, the atheistic Soviet government is not an obstacle, for it can be transformed from within, the main thing is to revive the indigenous Russian self-awareness.

The magazine did not last long. In February 1974, there was a split in the editorial staff, and in July, after the release of the 10th issue of the magazine, it was closed. Osipov decided to resume the publication under the new name "Earth", and its first issue was soon released. Meanwhile, the KGB began an investigation into the publication of the magazine. At the end of November 1974, Osipov was arrested, and while he was under investigation, B.C. Rodionov and V.E. Mashkov released the second issue of "Earth". This is where the magazine's story ends. In September 1975 V.N. Osipov was sentenced by the Vladimir Regional Court to 8 years of strict regime.

In 1974, former member of VSKhSON L.I. Borodin began publishing the magazine "Moscow Collection", devoting it to the problems of nation and religion. In his publishing activities he relied on the help of young Christians who grouped around G.M. Shimanov (foreman V.V. Burdyug, poet S.A. Budarov, etc.), belonged to the flock of Father Dmitry Dudko and maintained relations with other dissidents of a liberal-patriotic orientation. Two issues were published with a circulation of 20-25 copies, two more were prepared, but publication ceased. Borodin, having received from the prosecutor's office a "Warning under the Decree of the PVS of the USSR of 1972." that his actions could harm the security of the country and lead to punishment, he left the publication, returned to Siberia and started literary activity. In 1982, he was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in the camps and 5 years in exile for publishing his works in the West.

In the mid-70s. There was an ideological reorientation of the mathematician and dissident I.R. Shafarevich (academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences since 1991, president of the Moscow Mathematical Society). He wrote a number of works criticizing the totalitarian system. His articles “Isolation or rapprochement?”, “Does Russia have a future?”, included in the collection “From Under the Blocks” (compiled by A.I. Solzhenitsyn, published in 1974 in Paris), and also books “Socialism, as a phenomenon of world history” (first published in Paris in 1977) and “Russophobia” (written in 1980, distributed in samizdat, reprinted many times since 1989). These works created the author’s reputation as an ideologist of the national Orthodox movement, immediately arousing criticism in circles of democratically minded intelligentsia, professional historians and ethnographers, who found various kinds of stretches and inaccuracies in them. However, the theory of the “small people”, developed by Shafarevich following the French historian O. Cochin, received wide recognition in patriotic circles.

In the second half of the 70s. In dissidence, a current emerged that was later called “national communist.” It claimed to fight together with the authorities against Zionism for an original Russian state. There were two groups of such “communists”: the Orthodox, led by G.M. Shimanov and F.V. Karelin; pagans led by A.M. Ivanov (Skuratov), ​​V.N. Emelyanov, V.I. Skurlatov. Both groups actively dissociated themselves from dissidence in its liberal form and criticized the activities of the MHG, the Working Commission, the Christian Committee for the Defense of Believers, and the Solzhenitsyn Foundation.

In 1980-1982 Five issues of the samizdat magazine “Many Summers” were published. Its main authors, besides the editor Shimanov, were F.V. Karelin and V.I. Prilutsky. A circle of a dozen like-minded people grouped around them. The main idea of ​​the magazine was to persuade the Soviet government to adopt a policy of “common sense” and to strengthen power through communes united along tribal and religious lines. In 1982, after threats from the KGB, Shimanov stopped publishing the magazine. With its closure, the organized structures of the Russian national dissident movement ceased to exist.

In religious terms, there were not only Christians in the Russian national-patriotic movement. By the mid-70s. Small but stable groups of “neopagans” formed, calling for a return to pre-Christian beliefs. "Neo-pagans" considered the Proto-Slavs and ancient Slavs to be part of the tribes of the ancient Aryans, who had general culture and religion in the space from India to Spain.

To combat dissidents, the government used the relevant provisions of Soviet legislation, discrediting through means mass media. The conductor of punitive policy was mainly the KGB. Dissidents, as a rule, were accused of such crimes as “a socially dangerous deliberate act aimed at undermining or weakening the Soviet national state, the state or social system and the external security of the USSR, committed with the aim of undermining or weakening Soviet power.” According to the Supreme Court and the USSR Prosecutor's Office, in 1956-1987. 8,145 people were convicted of such crimes. For 1956-1960 On average, 935 people were convicted annually, in 1961-1965. - 214, in 1966-1970. - 136, in 1971-1975. - 161, in 1976-1980. - 69, in 1981-1985. - 108, in 1986-1987. - 14 people.

A specific type of punishment for dissidents was forced, as determined by the court, placement in a psychiatric hospital, which from a legal point of view was not a repressive sanction. Such a measure of influence as deprivation of Soviet citizenship was also applied to dissidents. From 1966 to 1988, about 100 people, including M.S. Voslensky (1976), P.G. Grigorenko (1978), V.P. Aksenov (1980), V.N. Voinovich (1986). Several imprisoned oppositionists (G. Vins, A. Ginzburg, V. Moroz, M. Dymshits, E. Kuznetsov) were exchanged for two arrested abroad Soviet intelligence officers, and V.K. Bukovsky - on the imprisoned leader of the Chilean communists L. Corvalan.

By the second half of the 80s. dissidence was largely suppressed. However, as subsequent events showed, the victory over dissidence turned out to be ephemeral. Gorbachev's "perestroika" fully revealed its significance. It turned out that the open struggle of several hundred dissidents with the moral and material support of the West against the vices of the existing regime of power aroused sympathy immeasurably more wide range fellow citizens The confrontation testified to significant contradictions in society. The ideas of dissidence were widely popularized by the world media. Sakharov alone in 1972-1979. held 150 press conferences, prepared 1200 programs for foreign radio. The American CIA actively promoted dissidence in the Soviet Union. It is known, for example, that by 1975 it participated in the publication in Russian of more than 1,500 books by Russian and Soviet authors. All this greatly increased the strength of the dissident component itself. According to Yu.V. Andropov (1975), in the Soviet Union there were hundreds of thousands of people who either act or are ready (under suitable circumstances) to act against Soviet power. There were some among the party and state elite of Soviet society.

The lowering of the USSR national flag from the flagpole above the Kremlin domes on December 25, 1991, if we look at this event through the prism of anti-Soviet dissidence, means that essentially the main forces of the former party and state leadership took over the position of the movement. They became driving force the nomenklatura revolution of 1991-1993, which instantly (by historical standards) cut down the foundations of “developed socialism” and brought down the building of the “indestructible Union”. The phenomenon of intra-party liberal dissidence and its method are well outlined in the article by A.N. Yakovlev "Bolshevism is a social disease of the 20th century" (1999). It claims that during the times of “developed socialism,” a group of “true reformers” launched a new round of exposure of the “cult of personality of Stalin” “with a clear implication: not only Stalin is a criminal, but the system itself is criminal.” Party dissidents proceeded from the conviction that “the Soviet totalitarian regime could be destroyed only through glasnost and totalitarian party discipline, while hiding behind the interests of improving socialism.” To this day, it has been discovered that a kind of “general dissident” was M.S. Gorbachev. This is evidenced by his speech at a seminar at an American university in Turkey in 1999 (see appendix).

The policy of glasnost and other perestroika processes changed the attitude of the Soviet government towards dissidents. With the freedom to emigrate, many of them left the country, and samizdat publications (by the end of 1988 there were 64 of them) began to operate in parallel with state ones. In the second half of the 80s. In the USSR, the last dissidents serving their sentences were released. In December 1986, A.D. was returned from exile. Sakharov. In 1989, it was allowed to publish “The Gulag Archipelago”; in August 1990, A.I.’s USSR citizenship was returned. Solzhenitsyn, Yu.F. Orlov and other former dissidents. Dissidence as a movement ceased to exist. Since 1986, dissident groups have been replaced by political clubs and then by popular fronts. At the same time, the process of establishing a multi-party system began; until its completion, the functions of political parties were performed by “informal” public organizations.

In 1994, the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation published the book “The Tale of Sakharov,” which included materials from a conference dedicated to the birthday of the outstanding scientist. The book contains a speech by S.A. Filatov, who completely identified the current government with the participants headed by A.D. Sakharov branches of dissidence and those of his students “who took upon themselves the difficult responsibility of realizing much of what Andrei Dmitrievich dreamed of... May Sakharov’s experience, Sakharov’s thoughts, Sakharov’s ideas and Sakharov’s feelings help us fulfill this difficult mission!” These words contain the official assessment historical role one of the currents of dissidence. As for dissidence in general, its participants, with a few exceptions (L.M. Alekseeva, L.I. Borodin, S.A. Kovalev, R.A. Medvedev, V.N. Osipov, V.I. Novodvorskaya, G. .O. Pavlovsky, A.I. Solzhenitsyn and others) did not retain a noticeable influence on the post-Soviet political and social life countries.

Literature: Alekseeva L.M. History of dissent in the USSR: The newest period. Vilnius, M, 1992, 2006; Bezborodov A.B., Meyer M.M., Pivovar E.I. Materials on the history of the dissident and human rights movement in the USSR in the 50s - 80s. M., 1994; Alekseeva L. History of the human rights movement. M., 1996; Dissidents about dissidence // Znamya. 1997. N 9; Polikovskaya L.V. We are a premonition... the forerunner: Mayakovsky Square, 1958-1965. M., 1997; Samizdat of the century. Minsk; M., 1997; 58-10. Supervisory proceedings of the USSR prosecutor's office in cases of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. March 1953 - 1991. M., 1999. Koroleva L.A. Historical experience of Soviet dissidence and modernity. M., 2001; History of political repression and resistance to unfreedom in the USSR. M., 2002; Anthology of Samizdat: Uncensored literature in the USSR. 1950-1980s: In 3 vols. M., 2005; Sedition: Dissent in the USSR under Khrushchev and Brezhnev. 1953-1982 M., 2005; Shubin A.I. Dedicated democracy. USSR and informals (1986-1989). M., 2006.

Application
Speech by M.S. Gorbachev at the seminar
at the American University in Turkey, 1999.

The goal of my whole life was the destruction of communism, an unbearable dictatorship over people.

I was fully supported by my wife, who understood the need for this even earlier than I did. It was to achieve this goal that I used my position in the party and country. That is why my wife kept pushing me to consistently occupy a higher and higher position in the country.

When I personally became acquainted with the West, I realized that I could not retreat from my goal. And to achieve it, I had to replace the entire leadership of the CPSU and the USSR, as well as the leadership in all socialist countries. My ideal at that time was the path of the social democratic countries. The planned economy did not allow realizing the potential that the peoples of the socialist camp possessed. Only the transition to a market economy could enable our countries to develop dynamically.

I managed to find associates in realizing these goals. Among them, a special place is occupied by A.N. Yakovlev and E.A. Shevardnadze, whose services to our common cause are simply invaluable.

A world without communism will look better. After the year 2000, there will be an era of peace and shared prosperity. But there is still a force in the world that will slow down our movement towards peace and creation. I mean China.

I visited China during the great student demonstrations, when it seemed that communism would fall in China. I was going to speak to the demonstrators in that huge square, express my sympathy and support to them and convince them that they must continue their struggle so that perestroika begins in their country. The Chinese leadership did not support the student movement, brutally suppressed the demonstration and... made the greatest mistake. If there was an end to communism in China, it would be easier for the world to move along the path of harmony and justice.

I intended to preserve the USSR within the borders that existed then, but under a new name that reflected the essence of the democratic transformations that had taken place. I didn't succeed. Yeltsin was terribly eager for power, having no the slightest idea about what a democratic state is. It was he who destroyed the USSR, which led to political chaos and all the ensuing difficulties that the peoples of all the former republics of the Soviet Union are experiencing today.

Russia cannot be a great power without Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the Caucasian republics. But they have already gone their own way, and their mechanical unification makes no sense, since it would lead to constitutional chaos. Independent states can unite only on the basis of a common political idea, a market economy, democracy, and equal rights for all peoples.

When Yeltsin destroyed the USSR, I left the Kremlin, and some journalists suggested that I would cry. But I did not cry, because I ended communism in Europe. But it must also be put an end to in Asia, because it is the main obstacle to humanity’s achievement of the ideals of universal peace and harmony.

The collapse of the USSR does not bring any benefit to the United States. They now do not have a corresponding partner in the world, which could only be a democratic USSR (and in order for the former abbreviation “USSR” to be preserved, it could be understood as the Union of Free Sovereign Republics - USSR). But I couldn't do this. In the absence of an equal partner, the United States is naturally tempted to assume the role of the only world leader who may not take into account the interests of others (and especially small states). This is a mistake fraught with many dangers both for the United States and for the whole world.

The path of peoples to real freedom is difficult and long, but it will certainly be successful. Only for this the whole world must be freed from communism.

Http://www.voskres.ru/articles/vdovin1.htm

On October 8, 1925, the writer Andrei Sinyavsky was born, with the political trial over which, in fact, the dissident movement in the USSR began. We will tell you about Andrei Sinyavsky and other famous dissident writers.

Andrey Sinyavsky

Andrei Donatovich Sinyavsky graduated from the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University in 1949. He began his creative path as a literary critic. Realizing that he created works of art for ideological reasons will never be published in the USSR, Sinyavsky writes under the pseudonym Abram Tertz the novel “The Trial is Coming,” the story “Lyubimov,” the article “What is Socialist Realism?” and submits them for publication in the West.

In the fall of 1965, Andrei Sinyavsky and his friend, also a writer, Yuli Daniel, were arrested on charges of anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation. The trial of the writers, which went down in history as the “Trial of Daniel and Sinyavsky,” was the first high-profile political case of that era. In fact, it was with him that the large-scale dissident movement in the USSR began.

At the trial, neither Sinyavsky nor Daniel pleaded guilty. Famous Soviet cultural figures spoke in their defense - the poet and translator Yakobson, literary critics Burtin and Rodnyanskaya, writers Kornilov, Paustovsky, Kopelev. Lidia Korneevna Chukovskaya played a special role in the attempt to save the writers. On December 5, 1965, a rally in support of Sinyavsky and Daniel took place on Pushkin Square - a completely unheard-of thing in those days! Among the rally participants was another famous dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky.

But Sinyavsky’s fate was sealed. In February 1966, Andrei Donatovich and Yuli Daniel were sentenced to 7 years in the camps. After the trial, the so-called “letter of 63” appeared: almost everyone who was the color of the then Soviet culture– Boguslavskaya, Okudzhava, Tarkovsky, Chukovsky, Samoilov, Ehrenburg, etc. This letter was even published in Literaturnaya Gazeta.

Nevertheless, Andrei Sinyavsky served in Dubrovlag until June 1971. His letters to his wife from the camp later formed the basis famous novel"Walking with Pushkin." “...I’ve never been a sharashka, a camp idiot, or a foreman. On my file, from the KGB, from Moscow, it was written: “to be used only in physically difficult work,” which was fulfilled,” Andrei Donatovich wrote, in particular, to his wife.

After his release, Andrei Sinyavsky received an invitation to work at the Sorbonne. The Soviet authorities released the writer to France. In exile, Andrei Donatovich taught Russian literature at the Sorbonne, published the Syntax magazine with his wife since 1978, and wrote a lot. His most famous books from the period of emigration are “Fallen Leaves of V.V. Rozanov”, “ Good night", "Ivan the Fool." Andrei Sinyavsky died in Paris in 1997.

Julius Daniel

Poet, prose writer, translator Julius Daniel wrote under the pseudonym Nikolai Arzhak. His most famous book– dystopia “Moscow Speaks”. Like other works of Julius Daniel, it was published in the West. In the USSR, recent front-line soldier Daniel was allowed to earn a living only by translations.

We have already talked in detail about the trial of Daniel and Sinyavsky. Everything that happened to Andrei Sinyavsky also applies to Julius Daniel. Only Daniel was sentenced to 5 years in the camps.

Julius Daniel was released in 1970. He lived and worked in Kaluga - he was engaged in translations under the pseudonym Yuri Petrov. Then he returned to Moscow, where he died in 1988.

In 1991, the case of Daniel and Sinyavsky was reviewed. No crime was found in their actions. However, none of the perpetrators were punished in the unjust trial.

Victor Nekrasov

Viktor Platonovich Nekrasov was born in 1911 in Kyiv. He went through the whole war and was wounded. Nekrasov’s story “In the Trenches of Stalingrad,” published in 1946 in Znamya, brought him not only the Stalin Prize, but also truly popular fame.

Based on this story, the film “Soldiers” was shot in 1956 - one of the first major works in cinema by Innokenty Smoktunovsky. Also based on the scripts of Viktor Nekrasov, the films “The City Lights Up” and “To the Unknown Soldier” were shot.

Nekrasov’s dissident activities began in 1959 with the story “Kira Georgievna” and a speech on the pages of Literaturnaya Gazeta with a proposal to immortalize the victims of fascism who were shot at Babi Yar in Kyiv. Viktor Platonovich began to be accused of “organizing Zionist gatherings.” In 1966, Viktor Nekrasov signed a letter from major scientific and cultural figures of the USSR against Brezhnev’s idea of ​​​​rehabilitating Stalin. Around the same time, the writer visited Italy, France and the USA, writing essays about his trips. Nekrasov was accused of “kowtowing to the West.” Viktor Platonovich was expelled from the party. The writer understood that later life and creativity in the USSR is impossible for him.

In 1974, Nekrasov and his family received permission to emigrate. We lived in Switzerland, then in France. Viktor Platonovich worked as deputy editor-in-chief of the Continent magazine and collaborated with the Paris bureau of Radio Liberty.

In the early 80s, Viktor Nekrasov was deprived of Soviet citizenship “for activities incompatible with the high rank of citizen of the USSR.” The writer died in France in 1987.

Vladimir Maksimov

This is one of the most amazing human and writers' destinies XX century. The wonderful prose writer Vladimir Emelyanovich Maksimov, in fact, was named Lev Alekseevich Samsonov. His father went missing at the very beginning of the war. An 11-year-old boy ran away from home, changed his first and last name, and wandered around the war-torn country.

Periodically, Maksimov was caught, sent to orphanages or to colonies for juvenile delinquents - depending on the circumstances under which the fugitive was caught. Vladimir Maksimov, convicted under completely criminal charges, spent several years in camps.

After his next release in 1951, Vladimir Maksimov settled in Kuban and began publishing his poems, essays, and prose in local newspapers. In 1956, Vladimir Emelyanovich came to Moscow with the intention of becoming a serious writer. “A Man Lives”, “The Ballad of Savva”, “We Are Making the Earth Inhabitant” - Nekrasov is published, he becomes famous, he is accepted into the Union of Writers of the USSR. Viktor Emelyanovich could become a successful Soviet writer who got along with the authorities.

But “for the table,” or more precisely, for samizdat, Vladimir Maksimov writes completely different things - “Quarantine” and “Seven Days of Creation.” In 1973, Vladimir Emelyanovich was expelled from the Writers' Union and placed in a psychiatric hospital. Today there is no need to explain to anyone what punitive Soviet psychiatry was.

Upon his release, Maksimov emigrated to France. Here he founded and was editor-in-chief of the magazine Continent. During the years spent in exile, Vladimir Maksimov wrote and published such major works as “The Ark of the Uninvited,” “Farewell from Nowhere,” and “Nomadic to Death.”

Vladimir Maksimov passed away in 1995 in Paris and was buried in the cemetery in Sainte-Genevieve-des-Bois.

The great physicist and great dissident recalls his entire journey - from birth to exile in Gorky. From the book it becomes clear how a person awarded the main Soviet awards, treated kindly by the party authorities (Khrushchev always, even when he was extremely busy, gave orders to connect him with Sakharov if he tried to get through by phone, and, not agreeing, listened attentively), becomes an exiled outcast. Not as a result of defeat, but as a result of victory - over oneself, over circumstances, over the era.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn. “The calf butted with the oak tree”

The book covers the period from the 1950s until the writer's expulsion from the USSR in 1974. It is primarily about literature as a matter of freedom, about how a writer gets rid of internal slavery and turns creativity into spiritual resistance. “The Calf” has a strongly polemical beginning; Solzhenitsyn argues with many dissidents, believing that they deviated into the global at the expense of the national.

Natalya Gorbanevskaya. "Noon. The case of the demonstration on August 25, 1968 on Red Square"

How could a demonstration against the invasion of Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia take place in a totally controlled society, in the most guarded (except perhaps after the Lubyanka) place in the USSR? Who were these heroes? What was the stroller doing with a small child at the demonstration? What happened to the participants? A book by the wonderful poet Natalya Gorbanevskaya, based on documents and personal memories, is about this.

Lyudmila Alekseeva. "Generation Thaw"

Human rights activist Lyudmila Alekseeva was a typist in the very first issues of "" and helped the families of prisoners. Her book is the first attempt to systematize scattered information about Soviet dissidents of the Thaw generation. Brief, clear information, vivid memories of friends, teachers and opponents - Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn, Larisa Bogoraz and Nathan Sharansky.

Vladimir Bukovsky. "And the wind returns..."

Twelve years in prison and camps. Conscious, firm struggle of politics, and not just peaceful spiritual resistance. At the same time, the bet is on a policy that is based on morality and therefore indestructible. The atmosphere of the era. All this is in the lyrical autobiography of Vladimir Bukovsky, translated into many languages.

Cecile Vessier. “For your and our freedom! Dissident movement in Russia"

History of the movement, written by a French academic historian. Showing the most different groups- from Westerners to nationalists; detailed curriculum vitae, bibliography. Clear, concise and to the point.

And also:

Thirty-five video programs dedicated to the dissident movement; detailed history and lively conversations with dissidents.

A series of interviews with dissidents, including those who moved away from the movement or look at its history differently than we are used to.

And one more thing:

Andrey Amalrik."Notes of a Dissident"

Vyacheslav Bakhmin."Notes"

Larisa Bogoraz."Dreams of Memory"

Leonid Borodin.“No choice. Autobiographical narrative"

Boris Weil."Particularly Dangerous"

Ilya Gabay. "...A handful of books and friendship..."

Petr Grigorenko.“In the underground you can only find rats...”

Sergey Grigoryants. " Half a century of Soviet perestroika" (chapters from the book)

Julius Daniel.““I keep getting lost in literature...” Letters from prison. Poetry"

Alexander Yesenin-Volpin."Philosophy. Logics. Poetry. Protection of human rights. Favorites"

Dina Kaminskaya. " Notes from a lawyer"

Anatoly Marchenko."My testimony"

Valeria Novodvorskaya."Beyond Despair"

Yuri Orlov."Dangerous thoughts. Memoirs from Russian life"

Vladimir Osipov."Dubravlag"

Alexander Podrabinek."Dissidents"

Felix Svetov."Biography Experience"

Lev Timofeev."I am a particularly dangerous criminal"

Natan Sharansky. " I will fear no evil" 

Dissidents in Russia (then USSR) were able to appear only after the 20th Congress with its exposure of the cult of the Leader, although domestic history knows earlier manifestations of dissent in the country. Thus, the first character to whom the concept of dissident is applicable is recognized as the one who “opposed” ideologically to Tsar Grozny himself.

And although Russian dissidents never had their own organization, written charters and official “leaders,” nevertheless, their activities in Soviet period can be separated into a full-fledged cultural and historical block, which has its own significance for our entire history, especially in its modern course.

Term, ideology and forms of activity of dissidents

About the concept of dissident

The phenomenon of dissent in the USSR was initially difficult to define even conceptually. People involved in this ideology considered themselves human rights activists, and called their movement Democratic. Further, their self-determination began to be expressed in the concept of dissidents, and even later a significant clarification was made - dissidents.

In fact, such people were first called dissidents by foreign media when they were faced with the difficulties of unambiguously defining them as a group. Soviet dissidents did not manifest themselves either as an opposition or as a left- or right-oriented political movement. It was then that the term “dissidents” was used, which had previously been used in relation to the phenomenon of Protestants. In direct translation, it meant “dissenter.”

Ideology of dissent

As their ideological basis, domestic dissidents chose two main postulates:

• Non-violence is a principled position that rejects power grabs, coups, etc.
• Law - in their activities, dissidents deliberately followed the letter of domestic legislation, as well as the relevant international provisions about human rights.

For the purposes of their activities, dissenters saw respect for such rights, and the possibility of its implementation by legal means was given to them in the actions of the state itself.

In 1966, the Pact on Political and Civil Liberties (Universal Declaration of the United Nations) was adopted, which the Soviet country signed and, as a result, undertakes to observe. The activities of dissidents are directed into this field - to monitor violations, demand correction, expose deceit, help those who were unlawfully injured (mainly on political “charges”).

In the wake of this free-thinking, changes are also taking place in the socialist camp. Thus, even liberal reforms are ripening in Czechoslovakia. Such reforms threaten the Soviet country with the loss of control over the actions of the Czech (and then European “brothers”), and the USSR enters there with tanks. In response, there is a protest of 8 dissidents who came out to Red Square and then, naturally, were arrested.

Activities of USSR dissidents

Meanwhile, this movement did not carry out radical forms of protest. Its representatives considered it necessary only:

• Disseminate identified information - violations of power were monitored and disclosed in samizdat.
• Appeals to the authorities themselves through letters indicating violations and requests to eliminate them. Such letters were drawn up to all major government agencies - courts, party departments, prosecutors, etc.

Let us emphasize once again: the actions of dissidents were not of a revolutionary nature; according to some historians, our dissidents did not even have clear plans for reforming the country. Their task was focused in the humanitarian sphere - the freedoms and rights of every citizen.

Dissident movement and connection with the West

As we have already noted, the emergence of dissent in the USSR was facilitated by the “thaw”. The country’s culture “rose up” from new possibilities, previously unimaginable. Freedom of thought, first of all, and the possibility of “editing” the government itself and its actions are the basis for the formation of dissidence in Russia. But the period of intoxication with a new faith in a new Soviet future is quickly ending.

Already in 1965, two writers were arrested for publishing their works “on enemy territory.” Then Yu. Daniel and A. Sinyavsky are already being held as anti-Soviet in a separate trial. However, the cultural elite finds strength to disagree, signatures were collected for a letter for their release, and even a small rally was organized.

Three years later, there followed the arrest of those who published (independently) the materials of this trial. In response, the dissidents create a letter for the world community based on all these facts and ask international participants to reconsider the writers’ case. The West responds vividly, the appeal is read by the BBC, and a new campaign of arrests and persecution is unfolding in the USSR. And dissidents settle on the mandatory practice of reporting to the West everything they manage to discover. In the international arena, this information is used for various pressures on the USSR and even sanctions. (For example, the Jackson-Vanik amendment appears).

Another “trap” for the Soviet government is the signing of the next Freedom Act in Helsinki, which was adopted by Russian dissidents as the main guide. Immediately after, so-called “Helsinki” groups were created in the republics, monitoring violations in these areas and necessarily reporting them to the West.

The fight against dissent in the USSR

This movement did not have its own organization and direct leaders, which made it difficult for the authorities to fight any manifestations of its ideological disagreement and dissent. But at the same time, the lack of such an organized structure in the dissident movement made it almost “toothless” and incapable of active revolutionary action. Therefore, the authorities did not feel any direct threats to themselves, but they experienced trouble from him different levels- from international to intra-union.

Direct landings resulted in scandals and infringements, so the following were widely used as methods of combating dissidence:

• Professional conversations - communication in the KGB with a “fined” dissenter
• Dismissal or expulsion - from work, study
• Wiretapping or surveillance
• Compulsory hospitalization – mental hospitals

Meanwhile, the authorities not only skillfully manipulated threats and opportunities to end up in prison, intimidating those who “stumbled,” but also actually took advantage of them by sending those who disagreed to camps. True, there were no precedents after Stalin for the article of treason, which is deadly for individuals and society.

Our presentation

The importance of dissent and the dissident movement in the USSR

Since this phenomenon was multidirectional, dissent itself can be divided into:

• Political - the problems of inconsistency of government actions with the letter of the law were emphasized
• Religious – manifested itself in “ignoring” Soviet atheism and defending the rights of believers
• Cultural – accordingly in various fields creativity as disagreement with ideas and means of their implementation in literature, cinema, etc.

It follows that the significance of the dissident movement ultimately manifested itself most in these areas:

• As a political matter, the Constitution is already being drafted new Russia people who went through the “school” of disagreement participated; in the field of punishment, supervisory public commissions have been created; human rights traditions have been created
• As cultural – the formation of an alternative worldview to the Soviet one, the preparation of an intellectual justification for the new structure of the country
• Like Religious – Open to Diverse Beliefs

With the beginning of the perestroika stage in the USSR, dissident activity faded from its current position due to the opened opportunities for publicly expressing one’s disagreement in various spheres.

While Stalin was there, almost no one dared to openly disagree with the actions of the authorities - one could end up in a camp for even minor offenses. Khrushchev at the 20th Congress exposes the cult of personality and frees political prisoners. Society begins to try to establish a dialogue with the authorities: films are being made, books are being written, the existence of which would have been impossible under Stalin. A generation is growing up that believes that the actions of the state can be edited, and allows itself everything more freedoms. In particular, two writers - Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuliy Daniel - transferred their works to the West and published them under pseudonyms. In 1965, they were arrested and tried for “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” To the discontent of the authorities, famous cultural figures (Shklovsky, Chukovsky, Okudzhava, Akhmadulina and others) stood up for the writers, sending the “Letter of the 62” to the Presidium of the Supreme Council with a request for the release of the writers. Several people organized a “Glasnost Rally” on Pushkin Square, and materials from the process began to be collected and distributed in samizdat.

Around the same time, the USSR signed International pact on the civil and political rights of its citizens  United Nations Covenant based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted December 16, 1966., as reported in Soviet newspapers. Soviet citizens are surprised to learn that the UN Commission on Human Rights cares about their rights and that they can go there if they are not respected. People who are not necessarily victims, but who consider it necessary to point out violations to the authorities, begin to collect evidence.

At the same time, similar processes are occurring in other socialist countries. It even comes to the point that liberal reforms are beginning in Czechoslovakia. The Soviet government, afraid of losing control over the social world, introduced tanks into Prague in 1968. As a sign of protest, eight people with posters “For your and our freedom”, “Shame on the occupiers”, etc. Naturally, they are immediately arrested, tried and sent to camps or psychiatric hospitals (after all, only a madman can oppose USSR, as Khrushchev once noted).

How did the Dissenters become a dissident movement?

The actions of the “dissenters” mainly came down to two directions: the first was the preparation of collective letters to Soviet authorities, courts, prosecutors, and party bodies with requests to pay attention to violations (for example, the rights of prisoners, disabled people or national minorities). The second is the dissemination of information about offenses - mainly through the samizdat bulletin "" (it has been published since April 1968).

What made the activists a movement were two “articles of faith”: principled non-violence and the main instrument of struggle - the letter of the law adopted in the country, as well as international obligations in the field of human rights, which the USSR pledged to comply with .

At first they called themselves “human rights activists” or “Democratic Movement” (both words with a capital letter), then “dissidents” (later the researchers clarified: “dissenters” - “you never know who was a dissenter”). Once foreign correspondents, who found it difficult to describe in one word a phenomenon that could not generally be characterized as either right-wing, left-wing, or oppositional, used the same term as in XVI-XVII centuries English Protestants were called dissidens (from Latin “dissenter”).

Nevertheless, there was no organization as such - each dissident himself determined the extent of his participation in the common cause: find paper for samizdat, distribute, store it, write appeals himself or sign them, or help political prisoners with money.

The dissidents did not have a leader, but they had authorities: for example, the letters that Sakharov wrote or the statements of Solzhenitsyn weighed more than the statements of any other person. For the authorities, the lack of hierarchy was a problem - if there is no head, it is impossible to eliminate one person and thereby destroy the entire organization.

What did the dissidents want?

The dissidents did not plan to seize power in the USSR and did not even have a specific program for reforming it. Together they wanted basic human rights to be respected in the country: freedom of movement, religion, speech, assembly, and each group separately achieved something of its own - the Jewish movement was engaged in repatriation to Israel, the Crimean Tatar movement advocated returning to Crimea, from where the Tatars were deported in 1944; wanted to openly confess Christ and baptize children; dissident prisoners went on hunger strike to ensure that their rights were respected and prison rules were followed; they wanted to practice yoga in peace and feed their children vegetarian food, without fear that they would be deprived of their parental rights.

Mainly the dissidents tried to more people in the USSR and abroad they learned about violations and that the authorities were lying when they said that human rights were respected in the country and everyone was happy. For this purpose, samizdat was used, in particular “”, and different ways transmitting information to the West - home press conferences, sending texts through foreign nationals, etc. But often the victims also received specific help: money or a free lawyer. For example, Solzhenitsyn transferred all the income from the publication abroad of “The Gulag Archipelag” to political prisoners, and the lawyer defended samizdators, Crimean Tatars and Jewish refuseniks for free.

Why was it so important for dissidents to turn to the West?

At first, human rights activists did not intend to “wash dirty laundry in public” and wrote about their discoveries to the Soviet leadership, or, in extreme cases, to the heads of the countries’ communist parties Eastern Europe. But in January 1968, four samizdat activists were convicted for publishing materials on a previous high-profile trial - the 1965 trial of writers Sinyavsky and Daniel. Then two other dissidents wrote "". In it they described procedural violations and asked for a review of the case with international observers. The appeal was broadcast on BBC radio in English and Russian, and was followed by a campaign against political persecution, much larger than in 1965.

This was the first time that dissidents had made such an official statement against the actions of the authorities. Subsequently, they tried to inform the West about everything illegal that came into their field of vision. This irritated the authorities: it made it more difficult to put on a “good face.” In addition, information that reached the West became an instrument of economic pressure, a kind of sanctions. For example, in 1974, the Jackson-Vanik amendment was adopted to the US trade law, according to which the US limited trade with countries that impede free emigration. Because of this amendment, the USSR, in particular, found it difficult to purchase computers and had to act through front companies.

Another irritating factor for the Soviet government were letters from international committees of scientists in support of colleagues - such as, for example, in defense of biologist Sergei Kovalev, historian Andrei Amalrik, physicists Yuri Orlov and Andrei Sakharov - it was impossible not to react to such appeals: bureaucratic the system was designed in such a way that after each complaint it was necessary to conduct an investigation, punish someone, and take some measures.

In 1975, the USSR signed the Helsinki Act  "Helsinki Act"— The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in 1975 at a meeting in Helsinki by representatives of the USSR, USA, Canada, most European countries and Turkey., that is, signed the obligation to provide its citizens with freedom of movement, contacts, information, the right to work, the right to education and medical care; equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies and determine their internal and external political status. A document published in Soviet newspapers: “Here, you signed it yourself, please carry it out.” The following year, human rights defenders united in Helsinki groups (first in Moscow, then in Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia and Armenia) to monitor violations of these rights and freedoms, which, again, were reported to other countries -under-written-there.

Foreign correspondents, who were invited to home press conferences, helped carry out information. (It is interesting that communication with foreigners in general for an ordinary Soviet person looked like a blatant act of dissident - every case of such communication became known to the authorities.) By disseminating information in this way, dissidents managed, without changing the system as a whole, to save or mitigate their fate individuals.

How many dissidents were there in the USSR?

The exact number is unknown, and it depends on who, in fact, we consider a dissident.

If we count those who somehow attracted the attention of the KGB (for example, gave samizdat to someone to read) and were invited to so-called “preventive conversations” with State Security officers, this is almost half a million people during the 1960-1980s . If we count those who signed various letters (for example, petitions asking for permission to emigrate or open a church, or letters in defense of political prisoners), then these are tens of thousands of people. If we reduce the dissident movement to active human rights defenders, lawyers or components of the appeal, then there are hundreds.

It should be taken into account that many did not sign anything, but quietly kept an archive of “dangerous” documents at home or retyped prohibited texts.

It is difficult to understand how many people listened to or read the banned ones, but it is known that the signal of Western radio stations was received by many thousands of people.

Was it dangerous to be a dissident?

Officially, the authorities did not recognize that in the “happy” Soviet state there were any “dissenters”: only criminals or crazy people could engage in anti-state activities under the guise of defending human rights. There were four main articles under which such people could be dealt with: “Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda”; “Dissemination of deliberately false fabrications discrediting the Soviet state and social system”; “Violation of the law on the separation of church and state” and “Encroachment on the life and health of citizens under the guise of performing religious rites” (all those convicted under these articles in the 1990s were rehabilitated, regardless of the “factual validity of the charges”).

Only for “agitation and propaganda” one could end up in a political camp (a small, usually zone for especially dangerous criminals), for the rest - in ordinary camps for criminals. At some point, the authorities realized that, despite the long sentences, it was more desirable for political parties to end up in the camp “with their own”, since there they were in a circle intelligent people, learned from each other - for example, jurisprudence and languages.

There was also an article “Treason to the Motherland” (which provided for liability up to the death penalty), but after Stalin’s death it was rarely used  In 1962, seven people were shot in connection with the uprising of workers at the Novocherkassk Electric Locomotive Plant. And the last political case, for which a sentence of death was passed, can be considered the case of the mutiny on the Storozhevoy, when in 1975 the ship’s political officer Valery Sablin seized control and put forward political demands to the authorities.. Dissidents were rather frightened by it.

If we take the statistics of arrests, they are not very high: in 1959, the KGB introduced the practice of so-called “prevention”—precautionary conversations between law enforcement officers and “dissidents”—and for every hundred preventive measures, there is approximately one person arrested. That is, several dozen people a year in Moscow. In the regions - plus a few more people for the entire 1970-80s. One and a half dozen people died in prisons and camps from diseases provoked by hunger strikes and beatings.

But in addition to imprisonment, many other measures were applied to dissidents: they could be kicked out of work, from college, put under surveillance or wiretapping, or sent for compulsory treatment to a psychiatric hospital. There were already thousands of people who went through this.

There are a number of known cases that can be called political murders, but it is impossible to prove this. Among the most famous are the attack on translator Konstantin Bogatyrev in 1976 and the incident with mathematician and organizer Bella Subbotovskaya, who was run over by a truck in 1982 under strange circumstances.

Was the government afraid of dissidents?

Since the dissidents did not have the task of overthrowing the government, they did not pose a direct threat, but their actions constantly caused trouble for the leadership of the country in general and various administrations in particular.

Firstly, it was unpleasant to talk to Western communist parties, it was inconvenient to purchase high-tech equipment through front companies and be a victim of sanctions; It was unpleasant for the little boss to receive a beating from his superior for some prisoner. Political prisoners bombarded the prison management with complaints that had to be recorded and dealt with, breaking down the office machine.

Secondly, dissidents set a bad example and embarrassed “true” citizens by spreading harmful information. In addition, it was not clear how to deal with something that does not have an organized structure: who should be imprisoned?

On the other hand, the KGB needed an internal enemy, which could be conveniently connected with the external one - America, in order to constantly generate a sense of danger. This made it possible to influence political decisions and receive additional funding from the CPSU.

What have the dissidents achieved?

The most important result is assistance to prisoners, primarily those convicted on political charges, and their families, as well as those dismissed for political reasons. Dissidents have been raising money for this aid since the mid-1960s; in 1974 Andrei Sakharov gave literary prize Chino del Duca to help the children of political prisoners; in 1974, Alexander Solzhenitsyn created the Fund for Assistance to Political Prisoners and Their Families. The prisoners received letters, parcels, they were provided with a variety of support, one of the tasks of which was to demonstrate that they were not forgotten about them in the wild, and to make sure that they did not feel cut off from what was happening in the world . Dissident and political prisoner Valery Abramkin put a lot of effort into ensuring that public monitoring commissions appeared in prisons  Public monitoring commissions were formed on the basis of Federal Law No. 76 of June 10, 2008.. Thanks to the dissidents who organized a collective hunger strike and the Day of Political Prisoners in several camps on October 30, 1974, there is now a Day of Remembrance for Victims of Political Repression, officially recognized by the state.

Another important result of their activity is documenting what happened in the 1960-80s: this is a part of history that we would not now have an objective idea of ​​without documents of unofficial origin.

Third, this is the Constitution of the Russian Federation  Adopted on December 12, 1993., which was developed with the participation of active participants in the dissident movement - Kronid Lyubarsky and Sergei Kovalev, and the development of a law on rehabilitation by participants in the samizdat collection “Memory”. In addition, the influence in the past or present on the real politics of individual people who emerged from the “other-minded”, such as Vladimir Lukin (from 2004 to 2014 - Commissioner for Human Rights) in Russia, Natan Sharansky in Israel, many representatives of national movements in Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia or Armenia.

Fourth is the attention that politicians and psychiatrists around the world have paid to the problem thanks to the activities of Vladimir Bukovsky.

A collection of samizdat texts that circulated in dissident circles prepared subsequent official publications. An example that is not directly related to their activities, but important for culture as a whole: during Vysotsky’s lifetime there was not a single publication, and when the opportunity arose to publish, the lyrics had already been collected by activists. Another example is the translations of “” by Natalya Trauberg, which until the end of the 1980s were circulated in samizdat and from which official publications were later made.

The activities of dissidents changed the social climate of the country, demonstrating the existence alternative view on the order of things and affirming the value of human life and civil rights. Thus, the dissidents prepared an intellectual alternative to the Soviet system, as well as current social activity: this is the continuity of the principles of human rights activities.

What happened to the dissident movement?

The movement began to dissolve with the release of political prisoners from prison in 1987 (although the latter were released until 1992). After 1987, it became possible to publish what had previously been samizdat in large print runs and with impunity, and street activity appeared—speeches, rallies. Traditional tools of intimidation are no longer working.