_ By LEV SUVOROV, D.Sc. (Phil.)
Professor, Institute of Philosophy,
USSR Academy of Sciences
the recently published
book “Gulag Archipelago” Sol-

tempt to make his fabrications
ppear truthful, refers to works
and documents of Vladimir
llyich Lenin. Some’ readers may
ot know minor details of the
istory of the USSR. It is on
this that Solzhenitsyn counts in
Slving an arbitrary and distort-
€¢ interpretation of it. But he
orgets that Lenin is not only
admired but also read through-
Out the world. And this offers
facto o sibility of showing with
acts that any interested person
_ May easily check, how false and
eed are statements con-
_ ined in “Gulag Archipelago.”
oon Solzhenitsyn’s point of
ke the main and determining
*ature of all the USSR’s histo-
P since 1918 was the reign of
aon directed against every
. On of society — the work-
aero took power in their
the : (see “Archipelago,” p. 40),
an ulaks described by Solzhe-
oe as the “best corn-grow-
i (Ibid., p. 67) and the intel-
8entsia de., against all social
Stoups, including working peo-
Sol This terror, according to
Zhenitsyn, is a typical feature
Sa entire history of the
et State in which the
ie of 1937 and 1938 was
as €r the only, nor even the
4 one” (Ibid., p. 37).

Solzhenitsyn Quotes Lenin

eee the one who stood at the
Bi of that terror, as “Gulag
tlpelago” alleges was no
Pris Person than . . . Vladi-
Peal Ilyich Lenin, who suppos-
nies not only sanctioned but
fits theoretically substantiated
Sol feity in the new society.
ae wtenitsyn even quotes Lenin

Saying: “Terror is a method
fe Persuasion,” and gives the
tence: Vol. 39, pp. 404-405.
psa see what Lenin actu-
cated, Ee in the place indi-

He writes about intervention-
: counter-revolutionary
"oops! that operated in the ter-
Of Russia at that time: “If
ad attempted to influence
‘roops, brought into being
broetemmational banditry and
ee by war — if we had
Byord Pted to influence them by

_ ©S and persuasion or by any

these

More th i
Specialist an 3,000 Bulgarian

bu S have taken part in the
Byas up of the Cuban econo-
500 B the last 10 years, and some
there ulgarians are now working
Country wlgaria_ was the first
aha Ty with which Cuba signed
al 8reement to set up a bilater-
Scientinession for economic,
an i :
eration, d technological co
leg a8 biggest Bulgarian deliver-
Htiong of refrigerating instal-
Plants nd of whole refrigerating

a ee
“cong e@tia will take part in the

: Tuction ;
irrj chs of a big plant for

indy Od of another big
Osea complex located near

D

ae the last few years Bul-
Number 1 available to Cuba a
ments Of technological docu-

antibioti
Necessities, Olics, and other

B

zhenitsyn, its author, in an at-:

a . * :
Righborho equipment in the

other means other than terror,

we would not have held out for
even two months and we would

- have been fools.” And further:

“The terror was forced on us by
the terror of the entente, the
terror of mighty world capital-
ism ... our every victory over
this prime cause of and reason
for the terror will inevitably
and invariably mean that we
shall be able to run the country
without this means of persu-
asion and influence,” (Vol. 39,
pp. 404-405.)

It means persuasion of and
influence on the open enemies of
the revolution and the Soviet
state, rather than the working
people, on those against whom
any “persuasion” other than
coercion is not only useless, but
even harmful. That is the real
essence of Lenin’s words deli-
berately distorted by Solzhe-
nitsyn. }

On Capital Punishment

Further on, in substantiation
of the same _ slanderous idea,
Solzhenitsyn cites two notes by
Lenin to the People’s Commis-
sar of Justice D, Kursky (in Sol-
zhenitsyn’s book he is given as
L. Kursky). These notes deal
with the articles of the criminal
code of the Russian Soviet
Federated Socialist Republic
(RSFSR) which are -concerned
with capital punishment. Sol-
zhenitsyn declares that these
notes are some of the “last
earthly instructions of Lenin,
not yet attacked by disease, an
important part of his political
testament” (see “Gulag Archi-
pelago,” p. 357).

Let us see which are the other
questions dealt with by Lenin

in May 1922 in addition to those.

covered. in these documents.
They include questions of for-
eign trade (Vol. 45, p. 188), the
Genoa Conference (Vol. 45, p.
192), the promotion of radio
engineering (Vol. 45, p. 194), re-
ducing the Red Army (Vol. 45,
p. 202).

Altogether, following these
“last earthly” documents, Lenin
wrote more than 80 works (the
reference is only to what was
published). So nothing comes
out of the “political testament.”

‘These notes are a small part of

the vast business correspond-
ence carried on by Lenin at the
time.

Shuns Elementary Honesty

An examination of these’

notes will show that even ele-
mentary honesty should have
suggested to Solzhenitsyn to
tell. the readers that capital
punishment (commutable to de-
portation abroad) was proposed
by Lenin (as punishment) for
bribing the press, recruiting of
agents, and working for war
(see Vol. 45, p. 189), that is, for
very grave crimes, which - in
many countries -are punishable
in exactly the same way.

At the same time Lenin’s idea
was “to put forward publicly a
thesis) that is correct in prin-
ciple -and politically (not only
strictly juridical), which  ex-
plains the substance of terror,
its necessity and limits, and
provides justification for it”
(Vol. 45, p. 190). Yet it is pre-
cisely these ideas of Lenin that
Solzhenitsyn leaves without any
comment. That is further proof
of his dishonesty.

Lastly, he is attempting an
open forgery regarding Lenin’s
entire and comparatively large
work. Of all things, he asserts
that even in 1918 Lenin “pro-
claimed the general aim to
‘clean the land of Russia of all
vermin.’” And vermin, in Sol-
zhenitsyn’s view, was under-

stood by Lenin as not only all
alien classes, but also “workers
who shirk their work,” for ex-
ample, “compositors in Petro-
grad” (‘‘Archipelago,” p. 40).
And further: “Envisaging and
prompting the main directions
of punishment, Vladimir Ilyich
proposed making the work of
finding the best methods of
cleaning the object of competi-
tion among the ‘communes and
communities’ ”’ (Ibid.). Thus, ac-
cording to Solzhenitsyn, Lenin
had no other task but to strug-

4

SOLZHENITSYN

In comparing Solzhenitsyn’s
use of Lenin’s writings with the
actual writings themselves, Pro-
fessor Suvorov points out the dis-

‘tortions and actual fabrications

that appear in Gulag Archepe-
lago. “A person who forges busi-
ness papers is punished under
law in all countries”, Professor
Suvorov says, “a forgery in liter-
ary work inevitably entails con-
tempt for the man . . . Solzhenit-
syn has already earned the con-
tempt of the Soviet people.”

gle not only against “alien

classes,” but also against the
workers who came to power in
Russia.

Can Feel Human

The quotation given by Sol-
zhenitsyn has been taken from
Lenin’s article “How to Organ-
ize Competition?” (January,
1918.) What is the  subject-
matter of the article? Lenin
writes in it about competition
as. a new motive force of social
development which, under work-
ers’ and peasants’ power, cre-
ates the possibility for ‘actually
drawing the majority of work-
ing people into a field of labor
in which they can display their
abilities, develop the capacities,
and reveal those talents, so
aboundant among the people...”
(Vol. 35, p. 195). What kind of
labor is this? Lenin gives a clear
and precise answer: “To work
for oneself and moreover to
employ all the achievements of
modern technology and culture
in one’s work.” (Vol. 35, p. 196).
This is a field in which “the
working man can reveal his tal-
ents, unbend his back a little,
rise to his full height and feel
that he is a human being” (Vol.
35, p. 196). :

The revolution in Russia, how-
ever, did not take place in a
vacuum. Russia was ringed by a
circle of hostile forces. A civil
war was breaking out. In those
conditions the young Soviet Re-
public was compelled to wage a
bitter struggle against all hos-
tile elements. Lenin time and
again said that coercion and
terror are not characteristic of
socialism itself, but thrust upon
it by the enemy. The counter-
revolutionaries “have practised
terror against the workers, sol-
diers and peasants in the inter-
ests of a handful of landowners

and bankers while the Soviet
Government is taking strong
measures against the landown-
ers, marauders and their under-
lings — in the interests of the
workers, soldiers and peasants”
(Vol. 35, p. 186).

Who Are the Targets? -

Who then are the targets of
Lenin’s words deliberately dis-
torted by Solzhenitsyn? Here is
what Lenin writes: “War to the
death against the rich and their
hangers-on, the bourgeois intel-
lectuals, war on the rogues, the
idlers and. the rowdies” (Vol. 35,
p. 200). This is the sort of “ver-
min” meant by Lenin. And these
are the ones whom Solzhenitsyn
seeks to put the case for. It is
important to note that Lenin,
calling for struggle against the
thieves and idlers, does not ex-
clude the possibility that the
“rich, the bourgeois intellec-
tuals, the rogues and -rowdies
who are corrigible will be given
an opportunity to reform quick-
ly” (Vol. 35, p. 204). But Sol-
zhenitsyn ignores this. By tear-
ing out of the text of Lenin’s
article what seems to him to be
“suitable” words he makes a
most trivial forgery, not utter-
ing a single word about what
the article speaks of, against
whom it is directed, and whom
it defends. :

A person who forges business
papers is punished under law in
all countries. A forgery in a
literary work inevitably entails
contempt for the man on the
part of honest people. Solzhe-
nitsyn has already earned the
contempt of Soviet people.
There is no doubt-that men of
good will in other countries, see-
ing the true meaning of the
scribblings of that writer, will
feel the same sentiments toward
him.

BOOK REVIEW

Science and social systems

The Scientific and Technological
Revolution: Social Effects and
Prospects, edited by Robert
Daglish. Progress Publishers,
Moscow, 1972. 279 pp., $2.95.
Available from Progress
Books, Toronto.

e 2 *

In the growing ideological of-
fensive against the socialist
countries, one of the most im-
portant weapons has been the
claim that these countries are
economically backward and in
efficient, that they are losing out
to the West in the scientific-
technological race, and can only
survive and advance with Ame-
rican “aid.” That such nonsense
could still be spread in the post-
Sputnik era is somewhat sur-
prising; it is even more surpris-
ing that some people on the Left
fall into this trap. Given the situ-
ation, this collection of essays
from the Soviet Union is parti-
cularly valuable for American
readers.

In no uncertain terms, the
magnitude of-the problem is
stated: “This scientific and tech-
nological revolution is no mere
background to the struggle be-
ing waged to make the world a
better place for man to live in;
it is more and more becoming a
means of that struggle, an effec-
tive instrument of social pro-
gress” (p. 13). Under socialism,
in sharp contrast to the situa-
tion in the United States, there
is a profound recognition of
what is most important in this
revolution: the all-round devel-
opment of fundamental science,

on whose results depend quali-
tative, epoch-making changes in
production and intellectual life”
(p. 56, emphasis added).

But it is not these theoretical
points that will make the most
impression on the American
reader. It is the concrete ways
in which technology is misused
under capitalism that have the
greatest impact, particularly to
non-Marxists. It would be diffi-
cult, for example, for any Amer-

ican worker not to agree that.

the scientific-technological revo-
lution under capitalism results
in “greater unemployment,
which is a constant menace to
the working class. This revolu-
tion becomes the chief instru-
ment of attack on the working
class and a means of greater
capitalist exploitation” (p. 174,
emphasis added).

These are only a few of the
problems under capitalism; but
what is being done under social-
ism to solve or to prevent them?
Is the situation really any bet-
ter?

Science under socialism is not
an appendage of the rest of the
society, and is certainly not
looked upon as a luxury, as it is
now by the ruling circles of the
United States. It is a part of the
material and spiritual founda-
tions of socialist society. It is
not looked upon as a danger, but
as the main constituent of the
building of a better life for the
future.

But again, it is relatively easy
to theorize; how can it be prov-
en that science under socialism

really fares better than science
under capitalism? The authors
give a large amount of concrete

evidence to defend this thesis. —

Starting from a rather low
level only a couple of decades

ago, the countries in the Council

of Mutual Economic Assistance
(CMEA) now have one-third of
the world’s scientists, with only
one-tenth of the world’s popula-
tion; the Soviet Union alone has
one-fourth of the world’s scient-
ists. The number are growing
faster than in the capitalist
countries. In the USSR, the per-
centage of the national income
spent on research and develop-
ment is 50-100 per cent higher
than in Western European coun-
tries, and has drawn even with
the United States.

Many other areas are discus-
sed, including the effects of the
scientific - technological revolu-
tion in the developing countries.

There are, not surprisingly, ©

some important oversights, too.
For example, in analyzing the
contradictions between capital-
ism and modern science, none
of the authors mentions that the
science budget is actually being
cut back in the United States,
first by Johnson, and then by
Nixon. But one can hardly fault
Soviet authods for not picking
up every subtlety and every de-
tail of our society. The Ameri-
can reader will benefit from this
book. It is up to Marxists in
the United States to detail the
problem here.

—wWalter E. Gross
in New World Review

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1974 PAGE9

Ba a cain tara