202
PARTISAN REVIEW
Solzhenitsyn's writings had a tremendous impact in France but little in
Germany.
It
is impossible to measure ideological influences, but the im–
pact of the Congress was considerably greater in Russia and Eastern
Europe than in the West. For example, the Paris-based Polish- language
journal
Kultura
(very close to the Congress ideologically but not a part of
its network) made a substantial contribution to the downfall of Commu–
nism in Poland, a matter of great consequence, since the Polish example
influenced the rest of the Soviet bloc. A considerable amount of material
published by the Congress was translated into Russian in a few hundred
copies but was widely circulated. More was accessible in the so-called
Spetskhrany,
the collections of ideologically harmful material available
only to trusted researchers. By the 1970s all but the most hardened
ap–
paratchiki
and the most simple-minded enthusiasts had ceased to believe in
Marxism-Leninism, due not in small part to the ideological spadework
done by the Congress in earlier decades.
The full measure of the work of the Congress remains to be studied,
and conclusive answers may remain forever out of reach. Those who op–
posed the aims and activities of the Congress at the time, and their
ideological descendants, claim that its work was unnecessary because a
real threat never existed or was grossly exaggerated. According to the
same argument, there was no need to spend much on military defense
since the Soviet system was so weak. But this is to confuse cause and ef–
fect . The Soviet system was not always weak, and Soviet propaganda,
even among intellectuals, was not always ineffective. And when the re–
gime collapsed, it was not owing to the efforts of those who wanted to
appease it and make major concessions.
All this now belongs to history, and yet it has a bearing on the pres–
ent. The Congress was a coalition of disparate individuals and groups. Its
pluralism was genuine, as were its inconsistencies and disorder. There has
been a tendency in the media as well as in academic publications during
the last two decades to describe the critics of Soviet and Communist
politics as "neoconservatives." In America, "liberal" became a synonym
for "anti-anti-Communism." This, in historical perspective, may be flat–
tering from a conservative point of view but it is untrue. The Congress
for Cultural Freedom was not the breeding ground of neoconservatism.
Many conservatives were or became isolationsts, even though few were
willing to accept this label, whereas the AFL-CIO was in the forefront of
the battles of the Cold War. John Ehrman, in his book
The Rise oj Neo–
conservatism,
rightly notes that contrary to what the label implies, some
cold warriors were liberal on social issues and favored governmental in–
terference in economic affairs; others were social and cultural
conservatives reluctant to interfere with markets. Nevertheless, Ehrman
