26
PARTISAN REVIEW
with some official support; even the Soviet constitution recognizes
the secession of all fifteen so-called major Soviet Republics . We could
distinguish between two movements, movements for secession , and
movements against Russification, which exist both among national
and ethnic groups, and for which people are abused and sent to
labor camps. Andrei Siniavski will probably confirm that there are
more Ukrainians in the labor camps in the Soviet Union than there
are people of any other nationality. This all indicates that there is a
very strong Soviet imperialism. We should support these people, al–
though such nationalism may bring about results we don't necessar–
ily like, and even though such nationalism is not necessarily demo–
cratic.
BORIS SHRAGIN: I think that the Soviet empire , as all empires
are supposed to do, will fall apart. It's especially important for the
Russian people, the Russian nation, to make this happen in the least
painful way . The only way to decide this problem is the democratic
way, which is why the human rights movement supported any na–
tionalities, any minorities who were oppressed and persecuted.
This problem of other nations and their independence has a
very strict connection to Russian nationalism. Russian nationalists
are divided. Solzhenitsyn, for instance, has said he wouldn't support
imperialistic notions in Russian history or in the present. But there
are various tendencies, which are strictly and openly imperialistic,
both within the social official ideology and outside it.
It's a very strange fact that in the Lithuanian nationalist move–
ment there are different groups; all of them are nationalists, but they
cover the whole spectrum of political positions. Russian nationalism
is connected only with authoritarian tendencies.
ANDREI SINIAVSKI: I've received a question: "In your view,
have the literary process and the role of the writer in a totalitarian
society changed?" Yes, I think they have changed and are continually
changing, for two reasons: because society itself changes and devel–
ops, and because literature in and of itself changes and develops . The
twenties, let's say, were a time of blossoming of Soviet literature.
There was more freedom then; various groups and currents could
exist, granted, standing on the platform of the Soviet regime, but
with different nuances . Moreover, there were good writers support–
ing the Soviet regime - sometimes even such frenzied , pro-Commu–
nist writers as, for example, Mayakovsky, a brilliant poet. This is
impossible now . Here they're asking: But what about Sholokhov?
