7
genuine socialist ideals, vehemently criticized the various privileges and inequalities of the
ruling elites in the Soviet Union (Kopelev 1978).
What was the cause of this “glaring contradiction” of inequalities? Most “socialists”
agreed that the Party stood at the center of the problem. Although the Bolshevik Party was
initially healthy and had adhered to “progressive” principles, its promises of equality and
liberation soon degenerated into “corruption and despotism.” In the end, the Party became
“the organization of power which acted in the name of the people but completely
independent of the will of the people” (Arkhiv Samizdata Doc. No. 80). Instead, it worked
for “privileged elites” who showed “little concern for the fate of communism” and thus
“grunted with satisfaction as long as a little more or better slops were poured into their
trough” (Arkhiv Samizdata Doc. Nos. 132 & 109). That is, the Party-State bureaucracy,
especially its upper echelons, became “the new ruling class” with “an unbridled passion
(raznuzdannykh strastei)” for private wealth, thus creating the problem of class inequality in
the first socialist country (Arkhiv Samizdata Doc. No. 166).
6
In fact, some “socialist”
dissidents even argued that this ruling class constituted “the new bourgeoisie.” This new
class was far worse than its capitalist counterpart because “the former only consumed
without producing” (Arkhiv Samizdata Doc. No. 4451).
7
Among many “socialists,” it was Ilia Glumov (a pseudonym that comes from the
Russian verb “glumitsia” meaning to mock, deride and ridicule) who was most sarcastic
regarding class inequality in the Soviet system. One day Glumov noted that “the Leninist
6. In 1964, Evgenii S. Varga, also known as Eugene Varga in the West, wrote this samizdat text often
called “the Varga Testament.” He was born in Hungary in 1879. Though he briefly worked in the Hungarian
Communist government, he became a member of the CPSU when he came to Moscow in 1920. Recognized for
his expertise in economics, Varga became the Chief of the Institute of World Economy & Politics in 1927 and a
member of the Academy of Science in 1939. During Stalin’s final years, however, Varga was disgraced on
account of his “non-Marxist” views. Under the Khrushchev administration, Varga’s fortune was reversed: he
was not only rehabilitated but also received the Order of Lenin in 1954. In spite of this, Varga kept developing
his own views which were often described as somewhat “non-Marxist.” The so-called “Varga Testament” was
his last piece written for samizdat just before he died in 1964. It was originally published in the underground
journal Phoenix-66, which was edited by the famous dissident Iu. Galanskov (Arkhiv Samizdata Doc. No. 25).
7. As shown here, it was a common view among dissidents that there was “a new ruling class” in Soviet
society. In particular, the work of M. Djilas – a former Vice President of Yugoslavia and a personal friend of M.
Tito – was widely quoted. According to Djilas, “the new class” arose under the banner of socialism and abused
its administrative monopoly for special privileges. See Milovan Djilas, The New Class (New York: Praeger,
1962), p. 35. In contrast, R. Medvedev – perhaps the most famous “socialist” dissident from the perspective of
the West – made a strong objection to this argument. Though there were ruling elites with preposterous
privileges in the Soviet Union, Medvedev argued that “they do not constitute a class” because they neither
owned the means of production nor bequeathed their positions to their children. See Roy A. Medvedev, On
Socialist Democracy (Nottingham: Spokesman Books, 1977), p. 297.
Convention