"Turn to the people, to the workers"
WE HAVE translated the following interview with the leading Soviet dissident Yurii Orlov from the October 31 issue of Russkaya Mysl, a
Russian paper published in Paris. The interview took place in New
York City. It has been slightly abridged.
tion can get out of control.
Without a real democratization (which is out of the question for the present leaders of the USSR), the social basis for any large-scale reform will remain very scanty. There are real contradictions, in the sense you cannot get off scot free talking about democracy, self-management and forces hostile to democracy and self-management and so forth. This sort of talk tends to get out of the control of those who start it. Moreover, there is a phenomenon of initiatives developing at the base that is not much reflected in the press.
Q. For example?
A. In various cities, quasi-autonomous groups have been set up, looked on ambivalently by the authorities -the Robin Hood's Children I talked about, study groups. There is a social dynamic, which is possible in the present situation, but it is not on the authorities' wavelength. That is what is important.
"Gorbachevian" talk can be compared to the play by Shatrov that created a sensation in Moscow last year. All the burning questions were taken up. There was a lot of sharp repartee. At the same time, everything was done to get the spectators to applaud, of course, but to stay in their seats. I would contrast this play with another that also aroused a furore in the last theater season, but which shows up much better both the limitations of the renewal and the stakes in the present situation.
I am talking about the play, "Speak!" In it, it is shown that there is no difference between good and bad leaders, that the crucial problem is those below speaking out, those who (I am quoting part of the repartee), "for fifty years they have been trying to get to forget that they are the masters of the country." It is this mobilization of those below that we have to watch very carefully in the coming months.
Question. What about the conditions you faced in the camp?
Answer. I spent half my term in the camp prison and in the punishment cell. In the punishment cell, they give you 450 grams of black bread per day, and every other day the other food, which is extremely sparce. They give you only the lightest clothing. They don't give you any bedelothes. I suffered from cold and hunger. When at night the plank bed was laid out - boards with steel connectors - I spent five to ten minutes adjusting the planks, then I lay down for five to ten minutes until the boards got warm, then I got up and started adjusting the planks again. That is how the night passed.
Early in the morning, the plank bed was fasted to the wall. You could sit on the cement post, but you could not close your eyes. If the guards noticed that I closed my eyes or that I opened them but my eyes were red, they put me on report, and I got extra punishment.
What is a punishment cell? It is 1 meter, 20 centimeters by 3 meters. In a corner stands the so-called parasha (chamber pot). The first time I was put in the punishment cell, asked for a newspaper for the parasha. The "inspector" (that is what they call the soldiers assigned to guard duty these days) said: "I'II call the duty officer right now."
He called the duty officer, who came and said that I could not have any paper. There were a lot of little things like that.
They generally gave me six months in the camp prison at one go. There the conditions were a bit better. They gave you bedclothes and slightly better food. But the work was very hard. I rolled barbed wire by hand.
When I was in the camp itself, not the prison, what bothered me most was the hard work. I worked on the lathe on which generally younger people (20 to 30) worked. And most of them did not meet the [production] norm. But for those who collaborated with the administration, that was overlooked. In my case, it was not overlooked. They took my visits away. For five years straight, I was deprived of visits.
_Q. The camp left you terribly exhausted. But you wrote a series of scholarly articles there (some of them have already been published in the West). In the camp one of the most extensive of the documents of the Helsinki group on the situation of the political prisoners was drawn up. It was published six years ago in Kontinent [a Russian emigre journal]. How did you manage to do that? Where did you find the time to think?
A. I am always thinking. Whether I'm sitting, walking or working, I'm thinking. While I'm talking to you, I'm thinking. In penal exile, it became easier to write. It was not necessary to ask for paper. But over time, everything did become difficult.
Q. A lot of people have told about today's prison camps. But there are almost no reminisences, in particular "fresh ones," about penal exile.
A. The hardest thing of all was to find a place to live, I mean buy. The peasants agreed, but then the prosecutor's office would not permit it, or the KGB intimidated them, or the police frightened them. I was turned down by everyone.
At first I lived in a trailer, along with building workers. Then, they gave me a room in the airport area. When I had made some contacts, I managed to move into a house, but it ended badly. They took the woman away from the village and started criminal proceedings against her, for other reasons, of course. But at least I did manage to buy a house.
"Where did the money come from?" an interrogator asked me in Lefortov.
15 coming monens.
International Viewpoint 23 March 1987
ness is a bad counsellor, isn't that
I answered. "Friends collected the money for me. I have a lot of friends who are academics with good salaries, and with that money I bought a house."
I planted and harvested potatoes. I had a greenhouse, that some physicist friends helped me build. (You can't grow anything out there without a greenhouse.) I had tomatoes, cucumbers. I bought cabbage at the Sovkhoz [state farm]. I caught carp in the pool (they are very tasty food). And so I managed to live on my pension of 60 rubles. But in order to do that I had to spend 80 per cent of my time on providing for myself.
Q. In the summer of 1985, we learned that you were beaten up in penal exile. What do you remember about that?
A. When I came to Kobyai, they "explained" to the people of the village that I was a spy. The first months, when I lived in the trailer, children threw stones at me. Afterward, the people saw that I was normal, and they started getting more and more friendly.
They beat me up, as I explained, under the influence of the propaganda in N. Yakovlev's pamphlet The CIA Against the USSR. Besides that, I don't think that there was anything else. Wow, "the spy Orlov" had come to Kobyai. As I later learned, there were a few copies of the pamphlet in the village, and everyone had read it. I took it to read myself. I had not seen it before then.
After the beating, a good deal changed. Those who were friendly toward me talked to the fellow. He denied that he had beaten me up, but he brought me a bottle of cognac. I did not take the cognac but showed him all my documents, showing him that I was a professor, that I was 60 years old, that I had been in the war. He asked if it was true that I had been with Sakharov. "That's true," I said, "is it a crime?" "No," he said, 'it isn't." Afterwards everything changed. The young people especially started to take a better attitude toward me.
Q. Did police investigation, trial, prison camp and penal exile change you?
A. Physically, of course they did. Otherwise no. My outlook on things was formed basically 40 years ago. It later became filled out. I understood more, learned more l now know more than I did ten years ago, but the principles remained the same. I do not feel any bitterness. That is my character, or more accurately the way I think. I am not interested in bitterness. I am interested in the goal, which is democratization. Bitterso? A bad counsellor.
Q. What do you think about the human rights movement, its present and future?
A. It seems to me that repression has greatly weakened it in its old form. What is the old form? It has been a movement without its own means to disseminate ideas and information. Printing presses, let's say, there is no such thing. And And influencing Soviet citizens through the Western mass media, the use of the Western information media for purposes of propaganda within the country, that method, I think, is entirely excluded for the future.
That is one side of it. On the other, I think that this stage is more or less concluded, and that the next stage will be work among the workers, among the ordinary people. And the methods will be different, perhaps in the conditions in the Soviet Union, illegal.
In the camp, I met people who had organized a "Communist Party of a different type." That may be even more understandable for the workers. I am certain that no bourgeois-type party will be popular now among Soviet workers.
If you remember, in the history of Russia there was the "Movement
Official Soviet demonstration for peace (DR)
КОЙН
16 of Russia there was the "Movement to the People." It was an illegal movement. People were arrested and others took their place. The people did not understand at first, and turned them in to the police. I am convinced that a similar thing will happen in the Soviet Union. And something will come of it. At first, Soviet citizens will turn them into the KGB, and later they will start to think about it. They might even inform on them at the start. "That person must be a propagandist." They might write about them to the KGB, and then think it over, "maybe all that they said might happen."
I am well aware of the attitudes of ordinary Soviet people. In penal exile I talked with a lot of them. I remember that I used to visit the regional center. And there was a group of working people standing there, and they asked me, "tell us about so and so." They were ready to listen to people who criticized the economic management and policy of the Soviet authorities. Soviet people in general understand that. What they do not understand, do not accept and condemn is relying on the Western media. They all condemn that.
In recent years, I haven't met a single ordinary person who thought that we should take our internal problems to foreigners. That is the psychology of Soviet people. It is
International Viewpoint 23 March 1987
the result of long-term work by the entire Soviet system. And we ourselves? Were we anxious to do that? So whoever wants to make headway within the country, among ordinary people, cannot lean on the West. And if they do use the West, they have to explain at length and carefully why that was unavoidable, why there was no other way, that we are not relying on the Western governments or their radio stations. We use them, but we don't rely on them.
We might accept support from the Socialist International, if the situation in Russia concerned it, or the unions.
lik Ike too much variety. Something in the middle is necessary. Such are our national characteristics today. But the managers of industry and the economy have to have room to maneuver in economic and all other matters. I'm not talking about private ownership. It's sort of like a lease. They are only managers. But they have to have freedom. And they should be appointed and monitored not by the party but by some sort of democratic mechanisms - a council of managers and the like.
As regards a private sector, 1 think that should be introduced only would be for the Communist Party to agree to this. But if you look at the history of various countries, you see that such situations have gradually developed. Kings willingly give up their power, the bourgeoisie relinquishes power. So, you can't say categorically that such a thing is impossible. In Egypt under Nasser, there was a one-party system. Sadat changed that. It seems that a one-party system would have been more advantageous for him. But no. He introduced another two parties and then four. Because there are people on the top levels too who consider the interests of the state.
I am sure that Gorbachev considers the interests of the country, that he thinks. He himself, it may be, will only move the country forward a little bit. But others will come forward. They will think. Of course, they are bound by a lot of dogmas and by the structure that holds them. But if they are patriots, they will strive for reforms, and I am sure that such reforms will lead to a much faster technological development of Russia.
Today, we are a strong military power, and that's all. In everything else, we are a second-class or thirdclass state. And we only live by the old Russian culture. Soviet culture does not compare with it. In science, of course, we are not the first. But if we were free, we would overtake America.
I don't think that those who stand at the head of the state are necessarily in their hearts enemies of the state. Maybe they are also patriots. But they are bound by dogmas.
If we are in conflict with Gorbachev, it is primarily over tempos and the final results. But in the short run we are not even in conflict with him. I think that he is moving in the right direction now. In the last year or two, a certain freedom of the press has started to appear. It is very little in comparison to my ideal, but nonetheless things are moving in that direction and not the other.
There is also a certain liberalization in the management of industry. There is not yet freedom in planning, but there is more freedom in financing. I also approve of that. Such steps as the fight against corruption and drunkeness I think are good, because people will think more and not pickle their brains in alcohol.
But Gorbachev is very much tied to the KGB. And they are resolutely opposed to being deprived of the power to exercize thought control.
While Gorbachev is tied to the KGB, he cannot move in the necessary direction. Russia will develop and overtake America only when there is freedom of thought.
17
That is easy to understand. The rest is a lot harder. They listen respectfully to criticism because they see that there are a lot of inadequacies. And they are prepared to discuss. They are even ready to accept the idea of a new party. I mean, the workers are. The peasant population is much less enlightened. The intellectuals, basically, are like the workers.
However, in principle Moscow and in general the center ditters sharply from all the rest of the coun try, including in this respect. In Moscow, they have sort of become used to foreigners. There a part of the people (even a considerable one) readily associate with foreigners. It is quite a different thing in the rest of the Soviet Union. I came to underin agriculture.
There should for the workers the implications o
For Russia, I Yugoslav system what the Poles wat
Q. Why not?
A. I was inte Slav system a lo variant is a cont administrators f with specialists competitive basi have told me th want hiring of d with them. They directors from ar That's already also be protection - unions, with all f that. don't think that the is suited, or, say, ated in their country. rested in the Yugong time ago. Their ract with specialistor a fixed period, being hired on a * The Poles (they at here) don't even irectors or contracts want to choose the nong the personnel. closer to anarchostand that the only objection to the dissidents was their attitude to the West. The people can understand any fundamental criticism, although they do not necessarily accept it.
Q. Do you think democratization is possible? What sort of system could it lead to?
A. I consider that capitalism is not impossible in Russia, in particular because a return to capitalism on the part of this people (this people, not any other) would mean national destruction. If, suddenly, God sent down "capitalism," it would be national destruction. I consider that the most suitable thing for this country (for this one) would be democratic socialism, with all the freedoms.
I would like there to be a legal opposition, of any type, except fascist. For this country the existence of any sort of opposition would be helpful. I am talking about an opposition of a social democratic type, which would be supported by the masses. I think that it would be the most understandable sort of opposition for the workers. Or even of a communist type, say like the Italian Communist Party. That would also be met with understanding.
In the first stage for Russia, probably, a lot of parties would not be necessary. Our people are on a level of development where they don't development syndicalism. The Polish varient is unity of everybody, national unity.
In the Russian system, that won't work. Only one thing is possible, that some manage and others protect themselves. That's my point of view. Insofar as I have a feeling for Russia (and I think that I have a good feeling - I have worked in factories, been in the army, lived in the countryside, I have seen a lot), I think that such a system would be more understandable.
If there is a legal opposition, unions and the like, then freedom of the press follows automatically from that. It is necessary also to permit a press based on cooperative principles. In Russia, there should not be any push for a return to private ownership, except perhaps of a small-scale kind.
And free elections, of course, with candidates put up both by the opposition and the Communist Party. I even think that in the first elections the Communist Party will win, and not the opposition. In the first, that is.
There is no point in discussing the other details. Because if there is freedom of discussion, the people themselves will work it out later, and do it better.
Q. By what road can these changes be achieved?
A. We realize how difficult it
International Viewpoint 23 March 1987