LETTERS
SOLZHEN ITSYN
PR :
Since
Partisan Review's
found–
mg in 1934, it has provided its
readers with provocative articles
and thoughtful comments on the
contemporary world . Because of the
great esteem with which your maga–
zine is held in the American intel–
lectual community, I feel com–
pelled
to
correct a few inaccuracies
concerning Alexander Solzhenit–
syn's ideas that appeared in Vadim
Belotserkovsky's "Soviet Dissent–
ers: Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov , and
Medvedev"
(PR, 111975).
Mr. Belotserkovsky states that
Solzhenitsyn "proposes the curtail–
ment of economic development
instead of the
restmctlln'ng
of its
inner character," and that "it
would seem that out of his disgust
with Marxism Solzhenitsyn rejects
not only materialism but, actually,
a scientific approach to social and
economic problems." One can't
help but wonder if the author of
these lines has ever read Solzhenit–
syn, much less studied his
Letter To
The Soviet Leaders,
in which Sol–
zhe nitsyn reveals his solutions
to
the social cul-de-sac facing the So–
viet Union.
In his
Letter
Solzhenitsyn calls
not for the rejection of science but
for its very opposite, the utilization
of technical knowledge so as to
" rationalize " the manifestly irra–
tional economic and cultural devel–
opment of Russia. Nowhere does he
so explicitly adopt this position
477
than in relation
to
the future path
of developing the Russian north–
east:
And herein lies Russia's hope for
winning time and winning sal–
vation: In our vast northeastern
spaces, which over four centuries
our sluggishness has prevented
us from mutilating by o ur mis–
takes, we can build anew: not
the senseless, voracious civiliza–
tion of "progress"-no; we can
set up a stable economy without
pain or delay and settle people
there for the first time according
to the needs and principles of
that economy.
Philip Rahv has even gone so
far in
The New York Review
0/
Books
as to say that Solzhenitsyn
advocates a kind of technocracy in
modern society.
Solzhenitsyn rounds off his
Letter
by asking the Soviet govern–
ment to give the Russian people "a
free art and literature, the free pub–
lication not just of political books–
God preserve us!-and exhorta–
tions and election leaflets; allow us
philosophical, ethical, economic
and social studies, and you will see
what a rich harvest it brings and
how it bears fruit- for the good of
Russia. " How does Mr . Belotser–
kovsky respond to such a modest
suggestion? In his article he wri tes,
"And if the leadership had ac–
cepted Solzhenitsyn' s proposals,
the actual result would have been
the temporary strengthening of the
regime-so that life in Russia would
