Forms of dissent in the works of Alexander Shtromas

Abstract

The article aims to explore the phenomenon of the deconstruction of Sovietism as presented in the works of the émigré political scientist and scholar Alexander Shtromas. Shtromas revealed that communism, as an ideology, had become utterly and irreversibly defunct in the hearts and minds of those living under communist rule. Following the logic and insights of Shtromas’s thought, the study attempts to demonstrate that every citizen of the Soviet Union was, at the very least, a potential dissident. Despite the ostensibly monolithic structure of Soviet society and the state’s persistent ability to orchestrate uniform public support for its actions, it was nearly impossible to find a single ordinary individual who was sincerely committed to the official ideology or genuinely loyal to the Communist Party and the Soviet state. According to Shtromas, the Soviet regime lacked authentic supporters and persisted solely through oppression and inertia. For this reason, its eventual collapse was not only possible, but inevitable. The study introduces and analyzes two distinct forms of dissent identified by Shtromas: the extrastructural or overt dissent, which manifested visibly on the surface of Soviet society, and the intrastructural dissent, which was deeply embedded within the Soviet system and permeated nearly all aspects of social life. The latter took various forms – from the so-called shadow economy, informal exchange networks (blat), and other unofficial economic practices to resistance efforts within the upper ranks of the Soviet nomenklatura. These included political and administrative officials who opposed Sovietization and Russification by nurturing their respective republics’ national languages and cultural identities. The Soviet system, through fear and coercion, cultivated a type of individual characterized by deeply internalized fear. Individuals were embedded within an environment where the official consciousness operated under conditions of complete or partial alienation, effectively preventing the public expression of any alternative form of political awareness. As a result, any ideological expression had to occur strictly within the boundaries of official political consciousness. Beneath this imposed conformity lay the suppressed demons of anger, hatred, resentment, and irreconcilability. Cynicism became a dominant mode of existence, shaping a passive majority marked by intellectual and moral insensitivity, and a profound deficit of compassion and empathy.