Vasyl LISOVYI
An Open Letter to the Members of the CC of the CPSU and the CC of the Communist Party of Ukraine*
The first version of this Letter was written by me and typed out by my own hand, probably sometime in May 1972; it was read by Yurko Badzio and his wife, Svitlana Kyrychenko, who offered their comments on the content. They advised me to condense, and even remove, paragraphs that contained many elements of the ideological phraseology of the time, as this made the text too tied to the official ideological jargon. I agreed with these comments, and the first version of the Letter was rewritten and retyped by me—this second version became the final one. From the text below, it is clear that I still retained most of the arguments that can be seen as a critique of the ideology from its own standpoint. From my point of view, such arguments had to be included for the sake of people who accept the basic tenets of communist ideology. The Letter thus combines elements of both external and internal criticism of the ideology of that time.
In providing information about the arrested individuals, I relied on data collected during the preparation of “Ukrainian Herald, No. 7”—the preparation of this issue of the Herald was supervised by Yevhen Proniuk. As it later turned out, the information we gathered was incomplete (we were unable to obtain details on all the cases of arrest).
Yevhen Proniuk and I decided to collect the addresses of famous people—party and state officials, writers, etc.—to somehow deliver a copy of the letter to them. Over a hundred addresses were collected, and a corresponding number of copies were to be typed. However, Mr. Yevhen Proniuk had earlier tried to dissuade me from carrying out this plan, as he believed I was throwing my abilities under the wheels of the foolish machinery of the communist regime. Nevertheless, I managed to convince Mr. Yevhen of the necessity of my protest, and with a heavy heart, he agreed to another sacrifice to Moloch (for him, his own arrest was only a matter of time). There was no turning back: if fear became all-pervasive and paralyzed the whole of society, then avoiding a direct conflict with the regime, in the hope of some evolution on its part, could easily become an incentive for the expansion of repression.
In early July, I took one letter to the “Expedition of the Central Committee of the CPU” (the letter was addressed to Shcherbytsky), sent a second from the Central Post Office in Brezhnev’s name, and gave a third to the party committee of the Institute of Philosophy, where I was a research fellow at the time. A couple of days later, on July 6, 1972, I was arrested. Proniuk was arrested when he was returning with the hundred copies of the Letter from the typist. But even before that, he had passed one copy of the Letter to someone who had the means to transmit it abroad. It was there that it was later first published.
After our arrest, Vasyl Ovsiyenko, who thought that all copies of the Letter had been seized, obtained the first version of the Letter—that first version was preserved thanks to the fact that Petro Romko, without my or Ovsiyenko’s knowledge, had recopied it for himself on his own initiative. Ovsiyenko distributed the text of this first version until his own arrest.
Such, in brief, is the history of the appearance of this Letter. This is the first time this Letter has been published in Ukraine. It is reprinted from a copy taken from the DBU archive—that is, from the copy I typed at the time; the text is reprinted without any changes. In the text from which the reprint is made, after the sentence “Or because physical extermination is not used in this case?” the next sentence is blacked out with ink—I do not remember whether this was done by me or during the investigation. In addition, the paragraph beginning with the words “Sometimes they say that *Samvydav* literature has an ‘underground’ character, etc.” is crossed out—it is possible that this was done by me or Proniuk before the Letter was retyped for distribution (so that the typist would omit this paragraph)—it has also been omitted here.
June 27, 1994
Vasyl LISOVYI
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CC OF THE CPSU AND THE CC OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF UKRAINE
Beginning in mid-January 1972, for some time, the bodies of the Committee for State Security (KGB) under the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR conducted searches and arrests among the Ukrainian intelligentsia. Arrested were: I. M. Dziuba—literary critic, public figure; I. O. Svitlychny—literary critic, translator; N. O. Svitlychna—philologist, worked in a library; Ye. O. Sverstiuk—literary critic, publicist; V. S. Stus—poet, literary critic; V. M. Chornovil—journalist, literary scholar; M. H. Osadchy—poet, journalist; L. I. Pliushch—mathematician, public figure; Z. P. Antoniuk—engineer; L. V. Seleznenko—chemist, PhD; S. M. Shabatura—artist; I. O. Stasiv-Kalynets—philologist, poetess; M. H. Plakhotniuk—doctor; M. Kholodnyi—poet; B. Kovhar—employee of the Museum of Folk Architecture and Life of the UkrSSR; I. A. Hel—expelled from the university in connection with his arrest and imprisonment in 1965; V. O. Romaniuk—priest, and others. A wide circle of people was searched and interrogated by the KGB.
For a long time, there were no reports in our press about the reasons for the arrests, and only a month later, on February 11, a brief notice appeared in the central republican newspapers (“Radyanska Ukraina,” “Pravda Ukrainy,” “Vechirniy Kyiv”) with the following content: “It was previously reported in the press that the Committee for State Security under the Council of Ministers of the UkrSSR has arrested Yaroslav Dobosh, a Belgian subject, for conducting hostile activities on the territory of the republic.
The preliminary investigation has established that Dobosh, Y., arrived in the USSR to carry out a criminal assignment from the foreign anti-Soviet center of the OUN-Banderites, which is maintained by imperialist intelligence services and used by them in subversive activities against the Soviet state. For conducting activities hostile to the socialist system and in connection with the Dobosh case, I. O. Svitlychny, V. M. Chornovil, Ye. O. Sverstiuk, and others have been brought to criminal responsibility. The investigation is ongoing.”
This was said with excessive modesty. It is enough to note that behind the “and others” are dozens of individuals. The phrase “conducting activities hostile to the socialist system and in connection with the Dobosh case,” though it contains a certain ambiguity, speaks of the combination of at least two charges: one—“activities hostile to the socialist system,” and the other—also activities hostile to the socialist system, but now in connection with the Dobosh case. This combination in itself is alarming, because it gives the impression that the arrests are only artificially linked to the Dobosh case.
We all know very well how “hostile activity” was fabricated during the period of the personality cult. At that time, many innocent people were declared traitors and “enemies” and were brutally punished. The destruction of almost the entire Ukrainian intelligentsia during the 1930s and early 1940s was preceded by the falsification of charges and show trials in an atmosphere of disinformation and intimidation. To accuse someone of espionage at that time was not difficult at all: no one demanded that the investigative and judicial bodies substantiate the accusations—even the crudest falsifications passed. It was also possible without falsifications—to simply seize and destroy people.
I view the current arrests as a recurrence of those dangerous phenomena. Without resolving a whole range of urgent problems, they are capable only of exacerbating them and accumulating new ones.
First of all, concerning the nature of the charges. In what could the “activities hostile to the socialist system” of the named people consist? In what criminal connections with Dobosh could any of them have been involved? The suspicion of espionage—the transfer of state and military secrets—is so absurd that it cannot be seriously considered. Even by their position in society (mostly figures of literature and culture), they could not have had access to this data. Not to mention that the moral authority of most of the arrested a priori dismisses such a suspicion. What then?
The articles of the Criminal Code of the UkrSSR under which the charges have been brought are not named in the press, but they are easily guessed. Anyone who has taken even a slight interest in the trials of our intelligentsia in recent years knows that people were charged mainly under Articles 62 and 187-1 (which define as criminal acts the dissemination of literature with the aim of subverting or weakening the Soviet government (Art. 62) and “the dissemination of knowingly false fabrications that defame the Soviet state and social system” (Art. 187-1). Articles 62 and 187-1 do not distinguish between cases of distributing literature (or oral statements) within the state border and transmitting it abroad. On the other hand, Article 57 (Espionage) defines as a criminal act only “the transfer, as well as the theft or collection for the purpose of transfer to a foreign state, a foreign organization, or their agents, of information constituting a state or military secret, as well as the transfer or collection on the instructions of foreign intelligence of other information for its use to the detriment of the interests of the USSR, if the espionage is committed by a foreigner or, especially, a stateless person.” If, in transferring certain literature to a foreigner for publication or for acquaintance, I do not commit an act punishable under the Criminal Code of the UkrSSR, then, whoever the foreigner may be, my action is not a crime. The foreigner’s affiliation with any particular party groups or intelligence agencies cannot be proof of the criminality of my connection with him.
First, I will make a number of remarks about Articles 62 and 187-1. It is absolutely clear that these articles contradict both the constitutional law of the Ukrainian SSR on freedom of speech and the press (Article 105) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations (Article 19 of which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”). Since no law should contradict universally recognized international norms, as well as the existing constitutional law, the laws expressed in Articles 62 and 187-1 should be abolished. It is surprising how the Verkhovna Rada of the UkrSSR can, on the one hand, recognize the existing Constitution of the UkrSSR, and on the other, pass laws that contradict this Constitution. For according to the constitutional law and the aforementioned Declaration, the dissemination of even anti-Soviet ideas, insofar as they may constitute someone’s convictions, cannot be considered a crime.
In addition—and this is no less essential—the wording of the articles under consideration and the commentaries that exist for them create wide scope for their varied interpretation. Of course, it is not so easy to find a precise criterion for whether, in a given case, the system is being criticized, or only individual phenomena of our life, just as it is far from clear in all cases where criticism (or satire) ends and slander begins. Any of the most careful research contains certain inaccuracies, literary works use hyperbole, and all this can be grounds for an accusation of slander. If someone in our time wanted to accuse Gogol of slander in “Dead Souls” against the reality of his time, then, using Article 187-1, it would be quite easy to prove his guilt. The situation is not saved by the word “knowingly” used in this article—what is known to some is not so to others. For slander is not a crime like, for example, theft, rape, etc., the signs of which are easily recorded at the empirical level. Despite the clear danger of varied interpretations of these articles, and thus the possibility of their arbitrary use, the terms of punishment they establish are astonishingly cruel (Article 62 establishes “deprivation of liberty for a term of six months to seven years, with or without exile for up to five years,” and Article 187-1—“deprivation of liberty for a term of up to three years”).
It is known that in some modern civilized countries there are laws under which the author of a certain work can be brought to justice, but in no case for political ideas or criticism of society in general, because the creator is obliged to rise above generally accepted assessments, must be the initiator of changes in people’s views and tastes, and it is not easy to apply established norms to his work. The codes provide for punishment only for the dissemination of certain, clearly inhumane, views (misanthropy, racism, erotica, etc.). But, given the complexity of the artistic expression of reality, the codes are very careful even in these cases and prescribe only deterrent measures of punishment (a fine, deprivation of royalties, confiscation of the print run of a book, a ban on its republication, etc.). I emphasize again: the codes do not provide for judicial prosecution for criticism of one or another social system, for the system exists for man, and not man for the system. A system that would declare itself absolutely perfect would thereby be doomed to decline: criticism of existing social relations (economic, administrative, cultural, etc.) is a guarantee of their improvement. Only a law of a Francoist character can recognize the justice of laws analogous to those expressed in Articles 62 and 187-1 of the Criminal Code of the UkrSSR.
The severity of the punishments prescribed by Articles 62 and 187-1 further enhances the possibility of arbitrariness.
But if one proceeds from the fact of the existence of these articles (for it is doubtful whether their immediate abolition can be achieved), at least everything should be done to prevent their abuse. Of two evils, one chooses the lesser.
The only reliable guarantee against such abuse is the transparency of judicial proceedings. Compliance with this condition in all cases of trials of those accused under Articles 62 and 187-1 must be without exception. The press must report every case of arrest and investigation related to such an accusation. Materials should be published not only those that satisfy the investigating authorities. People must always be informed via radio and newspapers about the date and place of the trial. Why—even after the preliminary investigation is over—do Soviet people not hear the voice of the accused themselves? Do we not have the technical means for this? Or do we not have a room so that, if not everyone who wishes, then at least as many people as possible can attend the trial? And since—I am convinced of this—a trial of even one or several representatives of our intelligentsia will interest almost every citizen, why not broadcast the trial on radio and television? If the trial is fair, will it not have educational value?
Arguments should in no way be made here that, since the views of the accused are of a “hostile” nature, the people should not be familiarized with them. For this would mean that the court does not trust the people, and therefore ceases to be a people’s court and becomes an anti-people institution. For both the investigators and the judges undoubtedly hold the view that a Soviet court should be an expression of the people’s power. Why then hide the materials of the court case from the people? Or perhaps the people are incapable of determining what corresponds to their interest, what is Soviet and socialist? It is ridiculous to think that by closing the courtroom doors to the people, one can keep them in a state of holy innocence. The presence of some “unstable” elements cannot justify limiting transparency.
An important condition of transparency should be to familiarize the population of the republic with those materials that are classified as anti-Soviet or slanderous (and on the basis of which the court substantiates the guilt of the defendants). The task of classifying materials (written, oral) cannot be given to the investigator—for then every investigator will carry out such a classification at his own discretion. Nor can this task be delegated to specially selected experts. For neither an individual specialist nor a group of them can possess infallible indicators of a Soviet (Marxist, communist) worldview. The right to establish such indicators is the sovereign right of the whole of society. If, for example, a ready-made classification made by someone from above is imposed on an ordinary communist or worker, this has nothing in common with socialist (and inner-party) democracy.
It is precisely this condition of transparency as the only guarantee of justice that is constantly violated during the trials of the Ukrainian intelligentsia. For some time, such trials were completely closed. Then a system of representation was introduced: from certain institutions and organizations, representatives are sent to the court (by party committees, etc.), who, in some cases, inform their organization about the course of the trial. But such a system, of course, does not mean the openness of the court. And it is very unserious to explain such a practice by the limited size of the premises. The openness of a court means its accessibility to every citizen of the UkrSSR—in our time there are many technical possibilities to satisfy the widest public interest.
Does the population of our republic know why the artist Panas Zalyvakha spent long years in the camps, convicted in 1965? Or the engineer Ivan Rusyn? Or many other Ukrainian citizens convicted at that time and later. Do they know specifically why Valentyn Moroz—a former lecturer at the Ivano-Frankivsk Pedagogical Institute, a publicist, a person of high spiritual tension—was recently sentenced to an incredibly harsh term: fourteen years of imprisonment? In the last month, a trial of the former law student V. Rokytskyi, arrested for political reasons in February of this year, has already taken place in Kyiv. Who knows what about him, when even the defendant’s father was not allowed into the court sessions? And this with a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. So, apparently, this year’s trials will also be held in an atmosphere of non-disclosure and secrecy.
Now about “anti-Soviet” and “slanderous” literature. It has already become well known that the KGB classifies the dissemination of so-called *samvydav*, that is, uncensored literature, as anti-Soviet propaganda. I am deeply convinced that a whole series of works by K. Marx, V. I. Lenin, and T. H. Shevchenko, if they were distributed on their own and their origin was not known, would today fall into the category of “ideologically harmful” literature. It is not for nothing that in the orders for the recently conducted searches, the expression “samvydav literature” has acquired the force of a legal term: literature produced on one’s own initiative is subject to unconditional confiscation under these orders.
I am convinced that the searches and arrests carried out this year were also a measure aimed against the spread of *samvydav* literature in Ukraine.
That is why, regardless of whether the involvement of the arrested in *samvydav* is proven, it is necessary here to talk about the nature of this literature and the reasons for its appearance. Without a clear understanding of the circumstances that gave rise to *samvydav*, it is impossible to give an objective assessment of all the facts related to its existence. What gave rise to *samvydav* and why does it show so much vitality?
We must begin with the fact that we have a whole series of acute socio-practical problems. These problems are known to everyone; I will only name them here. First of all, there are a number of economic problems that require immediate solution. Even in those areas where accelerated development has been constantly emphasized, we have serious lags. We are forced to buy high-quality grades of metal and a wide variety of machine tools (which we often do not know how to properly set up and operate) from abroad. The quality of our various types of equipment, including medical and laboratory equipment, is unsatisfactory. The shortcomings in the activities of our light and food industries are known to all. Our main export, as before, remains raw materials (oil, gas, timber, etc.). The finished product cannot conquer the world market due to a low culture of production. One of the reasons for the delay in the development of other branches of the economy is the low productivity of our agricultural production. Having very good land (significantly better than, say, Canada), we do not use it properly and are forced to buy a lot of grain from abroad. It is felt that after unsuccessful experimentation with various kinds of economic reforms, a fear of fundamental decisions in the sphere of economic policy has developed. We still cannot realize that such decisions can be effective only if they are developed with the involvement of all intellectual forces in an atmosphere of free discussion of economic problems.
It is known that any delay in scientific progress is immediately reflected in the development of technology and the economy. Perhaps the most decisive factor in the development of science is the rational selection and education of young scientists. Meanwhile, subjectivism in the worst sense of the word prevails here. Critical thinking, especially concerning social problems, is considered undesirable. And since a person’s thinking is always something whole (if a person is capable of critical thinking, this ability extends to everything that surrounds them), the most creative element is thus pushed out of educational institutions and scientific establishments. Mediocrity and careerists easily get into science. The selection of pedagogical and scientific personnel based on any criteria whatsoever, except for scientific abilities, is far from rare. Can this evil be remedied with the help of various kinds of reports and inspections? Even hundreds of inspections will not replace one principled person. And since such a person is capable of showing a firm character and “disobedience,” they find themselves among the undesirable leaders.
The state of our economy directly affects the well-being of the people. For a long time, the fact that the standard of living in our country is lower than that of most capitalist countries was explained by the recent devastating war, and such an explanation found understanding. But the more decades separate us from the war and the more countries that also experienced the war achieve a higher standard of living than ours, the less plausible such an explanation sounds.
The situation of our women is extremely unsatisfactory. The need to adopt a law on supplements to a woman’s salary according to the number of children has long been overdue. This is also conditioned by the need to stimulate the intolerably low population growth in the European part of the USSR. But instead, a wise head was found who came up with the idea of establishing an order not to pay a woman sick leave for more than three days to care for a sick child (for the remaining days, only a certificate is issued, giving the right not to show up for work). And at the same time, the care in nurseries and kindergartens is poor, and children are often sick for long periods. A woman, especially one who cannot count on her husband’s salary, finds herself in a hopeless situation. Such a payment system is in the highest degree inhumane.
The problems associated with preserving a life-sustaining environment for humans are extremely pressing. This is not just about the geo-bio-atmosphere. The life-sustaining psychosphere is no less important for humans. The modern industrial world in itself carries certain threats to the human psyche. This alone requires a careful study of the real conditions of human existence. Neither alcoholism nor cynicism can be overcome through verbose resolutions and instructions. They cannot be explained by the influence of bourgeois propaganda or the moral instability of individuals. Since these phenomena are reaching dangerous proportions, it is necessary to seek their roots in our own reality. To these roots belong, first of all, bureaucracy as a cult of soulless attitude towards a person and phrase-mongering—when lofty words about humanity only conceal base instincts. All this is especially destructive to youth, who are most sensitive to insincerity. Without any statistics, through simple observation, one can notice the threatening growth in our cities of theft, gangsterism, and, in particular, juvenile delinquency. A certain part of our youth shows a lack of any spiritual principles, cynicism, intolerance towards culture and humanity, and cruelty. In these conditions, the demand for humanitarian education is sharply increasing. But such education is constantly paralyzed by wrongly oriented and ineptly implemented ideological work. Instead of educating a person-creator, a spirit of servility, uncritical, dogmatic thinking is cultivated—as if all this really strengthens our society and state.
There is a certain tendency to stimulate the development of the technical sciences, while the humanities are viewed only as an appendage to ideology. But with such a view, ideology degenerates into mere phrase-mongering and gradually loses its influence. And the humanities, which should be the basis of ideology and politics not just in words but in fact, inevitably suffer.
The level of cultural development in our country is assessed mainly only from a quantitative point of view. Who does not know that Ukraine has a lower level of professional culture (not folk-poetic) than most countries in the world. Moreover, young African countries, whose cultural progress began only in the twentieth century, now have a whole list of names of artists, writers, and poets known throughout the world. Behind the figures on the number of libraries, theaters, clubs, amateur and professional choirs, etc., we do not notice the qualitative side. Our theater is languishing, cinema gives only shoots that break through with great difficulty. The level of literary journals is also low. The architecture of our largest cities is inferior to the architecture of large cities in Latin America or even Africa.
It is well known that the lag of the humanities, as well as of humanitarian education in general, inevitably affects not only the development of culture, but also the development of the technical sciences. For here, the general intellectual atmosphere in society is important. The ideas of philosophy, sociology, etc., are connected by countless invisible threads to the ideas of mathematics, biology, medicine, and so on. In our country, the possibility of the appearance of a person of genius in the field of philosophy, history, economics, or law is only met with irony. And thus we are forced to take from the West much of what, with a different approach, could have been created by our own hands. Is it not ridiculous to think that the genius of the classics of Marxism-Leninism forever frees us from the need for the appearance of people of universal and profound intellect? But for this, a certain spiritual atmosphere must exist.
Even proceeding from the idea of the USSR’s competitiveness among other countries of the world, it is absurd to think that political influence in the world is determined only by the size of the military potential. On the contrary, the status quo that has now developed in relations between the most powerful states of the world cannot be significantly changed in the near future by the arms race. And political influence will increasingly depend on success in the sphere of economy and culture.
The national question in Ukraine is extremely serious. The criticism of the “errors” made in national policy during the period of the personality cult and the certain democratization of life that followed that criticism undoubtedly found their expression in the cultural-national trends in Ukraine. People saw that an effective counterweight could be created to the threats to spiritual life posed by modern industrial progress by cultivating ethnic distinctiveness. It is not about rejecting industrial progress or artificially restraining its pace, but about such a synthesis of the changes it generates with the traditional archetypes of folk psychology and culture, in which the unification of people into a nation and humanity occurs on a free and organic basis. In the environment of the Ukrainian intelligentsia, a hope was born that after the criticism of the personality cult, the principle of internationalism, not the forced leveling of ethnic characteristics, would be consistently applied in the implementation of national policy. It seemed that the age-old fate that hung over the Ukrainian intelligentsia would finally cease: as soon as it recovered a little from the previous slaughter, as soon as something courageous and honest appeared in it, it would be cut down to the root again, giving life only to a pseudo-intelligentsia and a pseudo-culture. It seemed that Lenin’s principles of national policy would be rehabilitated not only at the ideological level, but also at the state-legal level. For the level of national-state autonomy provided for by the 1922 Treaty was fundamentally revised during the period of the personality cult. It is known to the whole world that all spheres of governance where consideration of national distinctiveness is necessary (internal affairs, culture, education, daily life, etc.) were transferred by this Treaty to the exclusive jurisdiction of the republican state bodies. Now even these spheres have become spheres of joint competence of the union and republican bodies. During the period of the personality cult, almost all the gains of national self-government, for which the peoples of the former tsarist Russia fought for centuries and which October brought them, were crossed out. Compare all the principal documents (party and state) on national policy that appeared on the eve of the formation of the USSR and immediately after—that is, during Lenin’s lifetime—with the situation that developed during the period of the personality cult and has remained unchanged to our days. Every impartial person will notice a fundamental difference. Why then hypocritically cover with Lenin’s name that for which he cannot bear any responsibility? Why—instead of looking for hostile ideas in every expression of dissatisfaction with the existing national policy, not try to soberly discuss the real state of affairs with the participation of those dissatisfied? Why not start, for example, a party-wide discussion on the national question, giving the opportunity to Dziuba, Sverstiuk, and others to speak openly in the press?
It is known that “nationalism,” if we use this word to mean something reactionary and worthy of condemnation, can only be called hatred of other peoples and the desire to infringe on their interests. In our country, nationalism has come to be regarded as the very principle of national self-determination—that is, the principle that was one of the main gains of the October Revolution. Demagogues of various kinds are trying to declare as reactionary the desire to defend certain rights of a nation recognized by international law and international ethics. The population of Ukraine is not given the most elementary criterion for distinguishing between enmity towards other peoples, on the one hand, and the awareness of their most basic national needs, on the other. Therefore, in the minds of very many people, especially in the Russified Ukrainian cities, nationalism is the most modest manifestation of national dignity and consciousness, and often—simply the use of the Ukrainian language. Under these conditions, our propaganda on the national question has a dually negative impact on people: in some, it fosters national nihilism and indifference to public affairs, while in others, it arouses a feeling of hatred for everything Ukrainian, nationally defined.
Recently (and particularly in connection with the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the USSR), articles have been appearing more and more often in newspapers and journals in which the prospect of relations between the peoples of the USSR is interpreted in the spirit of outright genocide. Although the “theoreticians” of such genocide tirelessly repeat that the “rapprochement” and “merging” of nations is of a voluntary nature, in practice, anyone who protests against the merging is seized and thrown into prison. Does genocide cease to be a criminal act just because it is carried out under the banner of socialism? Or because physical extermination is not used in this case? And most importantly—does such a policy not compromise the very ideal of socialism?
The list of problems that persistently demand their solution could be continued. But such a solution is possible only in conditions of free, broad discussion and familiarization of the people with the real state of affairs. For no social system—no matter how great its internal potential—can provide automatic keys to all the questions posed by the development of society.
We are so accustomed to playing at secrecy that we do it even where such a game is already simply ridiculous. A peculiar kind of cabinet thinking has taken root and hypertrophied in our higher party bodies—it is believed that only a few initiates can know the real state of affairs, and that an optimistic mood should always be maintained among the people (lest, God forbid, panic break out). It is forgotten in this process that this mood is determined not by statistical publications, but by daily experience—people feel the real state of affairs anyway, and optimism cannot be instilled by such means. Instead, you will achieve the effect of sowing distrust in every printed word.
Our publishing houses receive written and oral instructions not to let “dangerous” information reach a wide circle of readers. Citing various, most unexpected arguments, it is forbidden to provide this or that type of information. Thus, in recent years alone, it has been forbidden to provide information in the press about certain types of infectious and epidemic diseases (a special instruction exists about this). In essence, it has become impossible to speak publicly about the alarming facts of environmental pollution, the level of juvenile and other types of crime, the extent of alcoholism and drug addiction, the terrible state of many historical monuments (just visit the outskirts of Chernihiv), etc. All this information does not constitute a state or military secret—unless, of course, one classifies any reports of our shortcomings as state secrets (“after all, bourgeois propaganda can use them!”).
Our citizens, including communists, have to learn about many facts of our public life either from rumors or from those same bourgeois radio stations (whose reports we are often forced to confirm in one form or another). For example, rumors circulated about a rally of Jews in Kyiv. Foreign radio stations immediately reported it. And our press and radio wait. And finally, after the fact, they partially confirm that report. Does such behavior not increase the popularity of foreign radio stations and undermine the authority and influence of our means of propaganda?
I am not even talking about ideas. If you write phrases that have been altered countless times, you can calmly receive your salary, sleep peacefully, and walk among the “party-minded.” An attempt at innovation, especially in the humanities, apart from costing you nervous wrangling with the publishing house, can easily end with your dismissal from work. Works of sharp social criticism do not find their publisher; they are not liked (of course, not by readers!). Many manuscripts, whose authors are far from expressing any slanderous or anti-Soviet ideas, lie in publishing houses (or have been returned to the authors) and will not be able to appear in print simply because they are innovative and creative. Is Lina Kostenko’s collection of poems “Star Integral” anti-Soviet? Perhaps the poems of Ihor Kalynets are? Or those of Mykola Vorobyov? Or the works of the now-arrested Vasyl Stus and Yevhen Sverstiuk? Perhaps the work “Internationalism or Russification?” by I. Dziuba is anti-Soviet? These are just a few of the creations of the human spirit that have been unlucky enough to reach the reader through printing houses.
Censorship, the implementation of which is entrusted not only to the State Literary Directorate but, first and foremost, to editors and publishing houses, as well as the author’s fear of being accused of propagating hostile ideas, has killed the desire of many to publish their works.
But thought cannot be stopped; it cannot be forbidden to go beyond the limits of dogmatically defined norms. One can kill the one who thinks, but in their place another person will again turn to the paths taken by the predecessor. Figuratively speaking, today the pressure of thought on every cell of the dams that are built in its path is growing unprecedentedly. People who are seeking solutions to acutely pressing social problems feel a great responsibility to their people and consider it a crime to remain silent and wait until an opportunity arises to express themselves in our journals and newspapers. The author chooses another path in these conditions—they give their manuscript directly to the reader. It is clear that even a few dozen copies of a typewritten work cannot reach a wide circle of readers; their impact is limited. But neither the author nor the readers have any other choice. Thus is born *samvydav*. In order to stop its existence through repression, one would have to freeze social life to such an extent that progress in any sphere would be out of the question. Those for whom the period of the personality cult seems like a golden age should recall how the fate of the most advanced scientific trends, such as mathematical logic, cybernetics, genetics, structural linguistics, quantum mechanics, etc., turned out at that time. Only an ignoramus can think that such a result can be prevented by a different approach to the natural and social sciences. Science—from philosophy to nuclear physics—is a single organism, and dogmatism in any of its parts inevitably affects the development of the entire organism.
In our country, freedom of speech and the press are regarded as a luxury (if not an obstacle), as something that can be done without. Therefore, personal freedom is dogmatically contrasted with duty (discipline, etc.). But to live and behave as a free being is perhaps the first duty of a human. It is easy to live (for a person who is used to living this way) when you mindlessly repeat others’ thoughts, and it is much harder to say something and think as a free person. But only such behavior makes a person an independent creative force, and only a society consisting of such people is capable of organic development. Freedom of speech and the press is not a luxury, not an excess—it is the basic condition for scientific, technical, and cultural progress. Any attempt to suppress civil liberties inevitably hinders social development, dooming it to stagnation.
We must overcome the fear of the critical word. This will immediately have positive consequences in all spheres of our development. On the other hand, to avoid arbitrariness, it is necessary to move away from the practice of considering the dissemination of any literature a crime just because it was not published by an official publishing house. The most diverse literature can be produced and disseminated on one’s own initiative: fiction, documentary-informational, journalistic, etc. The dissemination of a certain work for the purpose of familiarization does not mean that the disseminator (if the disseminator is not also the author) shares the views expressed in the work being disseminated. When a state publishing house publishes a work by a foreign author of a non-Marxist orientation, this does not mean that the publishing house shares the views of this author. It is known, for example, that the Institute of Information of the USSR Academy of Sciences prints a series of informational publications that provide abbreviated translations of foreign non-Marxist philosophy, sociology, and politics. Can the institute be accused of anti-communist propaganda on this basis? Can our libraries, where one can now read in the original philosophers, sociologists, and politicians of a non-Marxist orientation, be accused on the same basis? It is true that such works are considered difficult for most people to access, since they require knowledge of a foreign language and are located in a few scientific libraries, but this does not change the substance of the matter. It suggests that the struggle in our country is not for the purity of the communist worldview (because from this point of view, a work by some existentialist is a hundred times more dangerous than the work of the Marxist I. Dziuba), but that we are afraid of a frank conversation about the burning and quite specific problems posed by the development of our society. What has been said does not mean that it is proposed here to fight for the purity of the communist worldview by removing works of a non-Marxist orientation from scientific libraries. Will our society become more resistant to certain ideas if it knows less about them? On the contrary, ignorance always begets powerlessness before what people do not know. Are not the special collection stamps in our time a superstition of the Paleozoic era? Is not this invention of bureaucrats directed against the principles of socialist democracy? It turns out that we have some chosen, higher beings on whom bourgeois propaganda has no effect. But for all other “mere mortals,” it represents a terrible danger. On the other hand, what kind of equality before the law is this: what is permitted to some is punished in others.
If we are unable to abandon Articles 62 and 187-1 of the Criminal Code of the UkrSSR (although I believe that they, as contradicting the Constitution, should be immediately abolished), then, at least, in the name of elementary justice, these articles should be applied carefully and honestly. For the dissemination of some literature to be qualified as a criminal act, the presence, among other things, of the subjective side of the crime is required—the conscious intent of the person to commit a crime. Such an intent, according to Articles 62 and 187-1, is “agitation and propaganda carried on with the aim of subverting or weakening the Soviet government or of committing particular, especially dangerous state crimes, the dissemination for the same purpose of slanderous fabrications which defame the Soviet state and social system...” (emphasis mine). That is, for there to be a corpus delicti, it is necessary that the person, in carrying out agitation, have a conscious intent to weaken the Soviet state system.
I am convinced that among the Ukrainian intelligentsia there is not a single person who would question the soviets as the basic cell of statehood or socialism as a social system. If criticism of individual phenomena of public life reaches certain generalizations, this is done only with the desire to accelerate the development of our society along the path of realizing high ideals.
How to understand those ideals, how to understand the signs of the Soviet and the socialist, is another matter. It is no secret that some among us understand socialism and communism in the manner of barrack-style communism, or even worse. These “some” are not accidental people—they can be found in very high positions. The dream of a socialism built on the despotic power of one or several persons gives some people no rest. Is it not through the efforts of such people that the criticism of all the distortions committed during the period of Stalin’s personality cult has almost ceased in recent times? Perhaps the time has come to return to the methods of leadership of that time? It is felt that there are forces in our country that use various circumstances, including foreign policy ones (the threat from China, etc.), to push our country toward the curtailment of democratic forms of life. It should not be forgotten that in such a case, the country will be thrown back in the sphere of scientific and technical progress as well, not just cultural.
Now a little about those arrested. A special feature of the current arrests is that not just Ukrainian intellectuals—poets, literary critics, publicists, scientists, etc.—have been arrested. People well known in the circles of the Ukrainian intelligentsia, especially among the most conscious part of our Ukrainian youth, have been arrested. How many novice poets and prose writers have benefited from the help of Ivan Dziuba, Ivan Svitlychny? Who among our Ukrainian creative youth does not know the names of Yevhen Sverstiuk and Vasyl Stus? And not just known—many people feel deep respect and sympathy for them. It does not matter that only one among them was a member of the Writers’ Union. Membership in the Union in our country is, unfortunately, far from a reliable indicator of creative achievement. We are witnesses to the fact that in Ukraine, almost all those from whom a principled and courageous word came have been arrested. Those who for a long time bore on their shoulders the difficult task of awakening our civic conscience and national dignity have been arrested. The arrested defended their civic position openly, not hiding their views. They set them forth in their appeals to party and state institutions. They always signed their works with their own names (unlike the infamous opponent of I. Dziuba, Stenchuk).
The position that unites the arrested is a position of an honest, conscientious attitude toward all phenomena of our cultural and public life. This position is neither anti-Soviet nor anti-socialist. Almost any citizen of the UkrSSR could easily be convinced of this if they became acquainted with everything that has been written by those arrested. They spoke out and continue to speak out against the distortions that forces associated with the past seek to implement in various spheres of our life. To assume that people like Ivan Dziuba, Ivan Svitlychny, Yevhen Sverstiuk, Vasyl Stus, and others could have committed any accidental actions that do not flow organically from their moral and ideological principles is impossible. The groundless, unceremonious, almost secret arrest of these people can only be seen as a manifestation of arbitrariness. For every cultured Ukrainian, it is also a deep national insult.
Zinovia Franko’s open letter to the editors of the newspaper “Radyanska Ukraina,” published on March 2, cannot, with a serious approach, be considered a refutation of these characterizations. Written in the form of a self-accusation, it is, at first glance, perceived as proof of the presence in the midst of the Ukrainian intelligentsia of people engaged in anti-Soviet activities. But let us reread carefully the phrase with which Zinovia Franko formulates her accusation. “My guilt,” she writes, “is based on an incorrect and distorted perception and interpretation of individual shortcomings and difficulties in our life. Although I myself did not participate in the production of various slanderous and anti-Soviet materials, I disseminated them among my acquaintances. I passed one of these materials abroad. I was well aware that the dissemination of these materials harms the Soviet state and the Ukrainian people. Through my friends and relatives abroad, I established contacts with many foreigners of Ukrainian origin who came to Ukraine as tourists. To a number of them, I gave information of a political nature known to me, treating one or another event in the life of the Soviet country tendentiously. I allowed that my information could be used abroad for the purpose of anti-Soviet propaganda, but I consciously turned a blind eye to this. In my political blindness, I did not notice that I had begun to pass information to disguised representatives of foreign hostile capitalist centers connected with the intelligence services of imperialist states.” Think about what is said here. Can a “distorted perception and interpretation of individual phenomena” or a “tendentious treatment of one or another event” constitute a crime? Even Article 187-1 does not extend the concept of “slanderous” literature to such an extent, singling out only that which has a knowingly slanderous character. Is non-tendentious literature even possible if it goes even a little beyond the simple statement of facts? Or perhaps party tendentiousness consists in depriving criticism of its passionate character under the guise of objectivity? Does the criticality of a view and even the exaggeration of certain flaws pose a danger to a social system that wishes to eliminate these flaws? It seems to me that the most dangerous type of “distortion” of the phenomena of our life is the attempt to embellish them. All kinds of enemies should strive to cultivate in us self-satisfaction, self-complacency, and varnishing, for all this is capable of slowing down our development, of braking it. And how many people in our country have been held responsible for this most dangerous type of slander?
Or perhaps Zinovia Franko sees her guilt in the fact that she did not timely recognize the “disguised representatives of foreign hostile centers”? But is that her duty? And can that be counted as her guilt? She must be responsible only for her own actions. What kind of information did Zinovia Franko disseminate? Why does she not clarify the meaning she concealed with the phrase “information of a political nature known to me”? And is the dissemination of political information a crime? For even our code provides for judicial responsibility for the dissemination of only military and state secrets (and “slanderous fabrications,” as well as agitation and propaganda, which are mentioned in Articles 62 and 187-1, are simply not information).
The author of the letter is just as unclear in indicating the purpose of her actions. And this is an essential aspect of the matter. In the letter, she did not dare to declare that she consciously set the goal of subverting the Soviet system and the system of socialism. Because no one would believe in the sincerity of such an intention. If one proceeds from the fact that her information was used abroad to the detriment of the Soviet system, then what does Zinovia Franko have to do with it? The best things can be used to do the worst deeds. An axe can be used to build a house and to kill a man. But can the one who invented the axe be responsible for the murder? Is it only the information that Zinovia Franko transmitted that can be detrimental to the Soviet system? Any completely objective information can be used for this purpose. But the fear of the truth about our shortcomings being known brings much more harm than gain. Is it not time to realize that the most laudatory, most pathetic writings that flourish so much in our country do not compromise socialism and the Soviet government the most?
I would not dwell on the analysis of Zinovia Franko’s letter—all the more so since the letter was written after a series of “conversations” at the KGB. But that is what makes it dangerous. This letter revives the infamous self-accusations of the 1930s; even the phraseology is the same. Both in Zinovia Franko’s open letter and in the report on Ivan Dziuba’s expulsion from the Writers’ Union, the accusation of anti-Soviet activity (without any specific characterization of the activity itself) is hung like a label. Herein lies the formidable danger of these accusations.
Since under socialism, ideology and the management of social processes must have a scientific character, the definition of the signs of the Soviet and the socialist must be a matter for a science that develops freely in conditions of a creative, unconstrained exchange of opinions. It is precisely on the criteria and recommendations developed by science that the leading state and party bodies should base their activities. The development of these criteria should be carried out with the widest possible participation of every citizen. And it is very strange when the determination of what is to be considered anti-Soviet and anti-socialist is given into the hands of the investigative bodies, or even individual KGB investigators. For one or another investigator acts according to his own understanding of socialism and the Soviet government. The matter is not saved by involving individual experts—specialists in the humanities—in the assessment of certain materials. Firstly, the expert usually receives material already seized by the investigators as seditious, and this weighs heavily on his psyche. And secondly, where views and ideas are being evaluated, an individual assessment carries the burden of subjectivism. It is known that even the most talented people, working in one and the same field, can interpret one and the same idea in completely opposite ways. This subjectivism is all the more intensified because in selecting experts, the investigative bodies proceed from their own preferences.
What is being done in Ukraine now does not fit into any framework of common sense, not to mention elementary justice. Arrests, searches, summons to the KGB. “Conversations” are held with people suspected of nationalism solely because they dared to sing in the amateur choir “Homin.” After a series of such “conversations,” “Homin” ceased to exist. The former head of the choir, Leopold Yashchenko, a PhD in art history, is seized and thrown into prison for some time “for parasitism.” Even New Year’s carols have fallen into the category of suspicious activities. Various kinds of warnings and threats are widely used: on the eve of May 22—the Day of Shevchenko’s reburial in Ukraine—a series of such threatening warnings was carried out with the demand not to come to the T. H. Shevchenko monument. Secret surveillance of all kinds has been brought to the point of absurdity by its scale. If the participants in the protests against the political trials of 1965 paid for their courage with forced unemployment, now more radical measures are being taken. It was enough for a member of the CPSU, a former freelance employee of the KGB, an employee of the Museum of Folk Architecture and Life of the Ukrainian SSR, Borys Kovhar, to write his letters to the investigator, in which the unseemly methods of investigation regarding those now arrested were shown, for him to be immediately arrested himself and he is now under investigation. And who knows these letters? Why could Zinovia Franko’s open letter be published, while these letters, which are of immense importance for justice, are concealed from Soviet citizens?
On June 2, a press conference was held, a report on which, under the title “Ukrainian Bourgeois Nationalists—Mercenaries of Imperialist Intelligence Services,” appeared in the republican press. Everything that became known from the press conference only confirms what has been said above. Dobosh’s testimony is pitifully powerless to be proof of the accusation of anti-Soviet activity even with respect to those people whose names he mentions (Ivan Svitlychny, Leonid Seleznenko, Zinovia Franko, Anna Kotsurova, and Stefania Hulyk). What terrible thing did the people named by Dobosh do? Did they perhaps aim to overthrow the Soviet system in Ukraine? Were they preparing a coup or sabotage or giving away military and state secrets? No, Dobosh asserts nothing of the kind. Everything that was said at the press conference about the activities of the OUN is suitable perhaps only for explaining the actions of Dobosh himself, who belonged to this organization. It is true that from the whole course of the press conference it is clear that its organizers very much wanted the impression to be created that the persons named by Dobosh belonged to some underground OUN organizations operating on the territory of Ukraine. Since it is taken as an axiom that such organizations must strive to overthrow the Soviet system in Ukraine and establish a “bourgeois independent Ukraine” (why the term “independent Ukraine” is necessarily associated with a “bourgeois Ukraine” is known only to God), from this the conclusion about the anti-Soviet activity of the named people follows by itself. But anyone who wants to prove the affiliation of the now-arrested Ukrainian citizens to some underground anti-Soviet organizations will have to pull such proof out of thin air. For the fact that Dobosh informed someone about something, or offered someone money “for support,” or even that he had addresses and (even more terrifying!) some “passwords,” cannot be such proof. It cannot even be proof of cooperation—for that, something much more substantial is needed. All the named facts can be material for assessing the activities of only Dobosh, and not the persons named by him. And even then, only if they are taken not by themselves, but only with consideration of the goal he set for himself. And what specific things was Dobosh able to say about the people arrested in the “Dobosh case”? About many, not a word at all, and about those he named, only that they passed him “political and other” information. (What a coincidence of the name of the information in Zinovia Franko and Y. Dobosh? From where such identity of terms?). And that’s all the specifics! And what is this “political information”? Do our newspapers and journals not openly provide such information every day, covering the policy of the party and the state? Or does this term have some other, hidden meaning? Then what exactly? Perhaps political information here refers to information about facts of violation of the Constitution, about the lawless repressions against the Ukrainian intelligentsia? But if such information were indeed disseminated by someone—can the desire to overcome the principles of lawlessness through publicity be considered a crime? It seems, on the contrary—the one who seeks to conceal lawlessness is the real criminal. Is this not how normal human logic should be?
Although in this letter I speak mainly about violations of socialist democracy and legality, everything that is now happening in Ukraine has another important aspect. The facts mentioned, one way or another, must be considered primarily as a manifestation of national policy in Ukraine. The local character of the repressions is immediately striking. In their entirety, the named (and even more so the unnamed) facts are like a bacchanalia of Ukrainophobic forces. And this on the eve of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the formation of the USSR. Instead of critically reviewing our state-legal and party structures from the point of view of improving national relations and eliminating the slightest national injustice, a path of irresponsible pathos and empty grandiloquence has been chosen. Someone has taken a liking to strengthening the friendship of peoples with the help of verbal glorification of the role of the Russian people and oft-repeated assurances of love for them. “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism” and “Zionism” are mercilessly criticized, but not a word about Great-Russian chauvinism and anti-Semitism. Declaring themselves the sole bearers of socialism, party-mindedness, and internationalism, unscrupulous demagogues set out on a crusade against everything nationally distinctive, cultivating a psychology of national, and therefore moral, nihilism. It seems that under the banner of strengthening the friendship of peoples, someone stubbornly wants to make these peoples quarrel among themselves. To the fundamentally flawed orientations in the national question are added daily petty insults to national dignity.
And now the KGB bodies are approaching the long-desired goal of proving that a nationalist anti-Soviet underground exists in Ukraine (how to “prove” it and to whom to “prove” it—we will not touch on this question). Because such a “proof” will untie their hands for mass repressions. And, as can be seen from everything, significant progress has been made in this direction. It does not matter what is being concealed and why it is being concealed. If it is concealed—it means it’s an underground. And an anti-Soviet underground. And if there is an underground, there must be underground activists and organizers of the underground. Therefore, they must be found.
But, entering a new phase of political repressions in Ukraine, the judges should sit in libraries and leaf through documents concerning the activities of medieval demonologists, the searchers for un-American activities of the McCarthy era, the catchers of “enemies of the people” during the personality cult. This will be, as never before, instructive. Darkness is not eternal—and in our cybernetic age, it is illuminated much too quickly, no matter what they say, by the light of reason. The initiators of lawlessness may soon be brought to justice.
In addressing this letter to the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, I proceed from the premise that it is precisely these party bodies, and above all the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the General Secretary, that bear the primary responsibility for the preservation of socialist legality and the consistent implementation of the principles of internationalism.
Given the conditions under which this letter is being submitted, it is difficult for me to believe in a constructive reaction to it. Although I am not appearing as a defendant, nor as a witness, nor as someone in any way involved in the affair that is now called the “Dobosh case,” after submitting this letter I will undoubtedly find myself among the “enemies.” Perhaps this is right, because Dobosh has been released, and the “Dobosh case”—t h i s i s n o w s i m p l y a c a s e d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e l i v i n g U k r a i n i a n p e o p l e a n d a l i v i n g U k r a i n i a n c u l t u r e. Such a “case” does indeed unite all those arrested. But I also consider myself involved in such a case—that is why I ask that you arrest and try me as well.
Member of the CPSU, PhD in Philosophy,
Research Fellow at the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the UkrSSR
V.S. Lisovyi.
Home address: Kyiv-122, Darnytskyi Boulevard, 1, Apt. 52.