In this series, Dr. Carson examines the connection between ideology and the revolutions of our time and traces the impact on several major countries and the spread of the ideas and practices around the world.
Terror is Soviet Communism’s substitute for law. It is not an accident that it is a substitute; it is not a whim of those who rule; it does not arise simply from the love of power. Terror is as essential to communism as oxygen is to fire. Its essentiality, its necessity, arises from the nature of things. The necessity for it is, if you will, ontological and metaphysical, lying at the core of how things are and the way they can be here on this earth. (How much terror is necessary is an entirely different matter; it is, in any case, a question for tyrants to debate.)
Karl Marx professed to believe that when private property was abolished the state would wither away. The available evidence indicates that Marx erred, that far from disappearing the state expands and grows luxuriously until it occupies every nook and cranny of the life of a people when private property is abolished. Marx’s insight was off the mark. It is not the state which withers away when property is abolished, but law, and liberty, and private rights, and justice.
True, theorists of communism thought that the need for law would disappear as the revolution moved to its fruition. This would, however, occur simultaneously with the withering away of the state, or, at least, as a part of the same process. Law, according to Marxism, is a product of the class struggle. It is the means by which the ruling class imposes its will on all the rest. The state is the device which effects the imposition. The Bolshevik Revolution did indeed sunder ancient relationships between the state (and the government within it), property, law, and private rights. It sundered them sufficiently to reveal some connections which could have been known theretofore mainly by speculation. The Soviet experience should serve as a rich mine for political theory, but it can only do so by being separated from Marxian theory.
Law and Property Rights
The major conclusion to be drawn from the Soviet experience is this: Law is neither essential to nor derived from the power of the state. On the contrary, law is an impediment to the exercise of governmental power. Government operates essentially by the use of force. The state is the territory within which a government has a monopoly of the use of force, at least within its jurisdiction. Law regularizes and limits the use of force by government. It limits it by prescribing how force shall be used, to what extent, and under what conditions. Law is no more necessary to governments than handcuffs would be to a boxer.
Law arises from and depends on property rights. All rights are extensions of property rights. This has been the case historically. Freedom of speech, of press, and of religion, for example, were only established after the foundation had been laid in rights to private property. This course of events was not accidental; it was essential. The law can protect only what it can define. Freedom of speech is a property right to one’s utterances, depending for its use upon a place (property) from which to speak, and upon its defense for the means by which to enter into an adversary relationship with those (including government) who would deny it. Abolish private property, and you abolish all rights and liberties with it. Law can no more survive without these rights in property than can a building be suspended from sky hooks. Neither has any foundation.
The Alternative Is Terror
Government requires neither private property nor law in order to function. They are inhibitions on its exercise of force. There is for government an alternative to law; it is terror. Government must act by law or by terror, or a combination of these two means. In the absence of private property and its corollary, law, government must act by terror. The exercise of force without the restraint of law is terror. No better definition can be given, and none is needed. It does not become terror because of the horrible character of the acts; every use of force is terroristic because it is arbitrary, unpredictable, and has no certain cause or explanation. None may know when force will be applied or when it will be halted, for there are no enforceable restraints.
The
Stages of Soviet Rule
The history of the
The next episode properly encompasses the whole period of the personal rule of Joseph Stalin, 1928-1953, a period of 25 years of the most extensive and intensive reign of terror in all of history. The Stalinist terror can itself be broken into episodes—forced collectivization, forced industrialization, the Great Purge, and so on—, but this would only involve distinctions based on the character of the victims not upon the extent of the terror.
Following Stalin’s death, particularly during Nikita Khrushchev’s middle period, so to speak, 1956-early 1960′s, there was a dramatic abatement of the terror, a widescale freeing of political prisoners, and even some revelation of the extent of Stalin’s terror. This does not mean Khrushchev’s reign was lawful, only less terror-filled. The indications are that Leonid Brezhnev has restored much of the secretive atmosphere of Stalin as well as a modified terror.
Always, Terror
One thing should be made clear: Every Communist regime in the
The purpose of the terror in the Soviet Union is not primarily to maintain what in the
An Ideological Weapon
Terror, then, is an ideological weapon. It is the main device used in the attempt to impose communism on the Russian people. A most important conclusion follows from this: The extent of the terror is in direct proportion to the effort being made to impose communism. The facts tend to support this conclusion. In the 1920′s, under the New Economic Policy, there was an abatement of the terror. It is generally understood that the New Economic Policy was a conscious retreat, albeit temporary, from socialism or communism. Such restoration of private enterprise in trade, farming, and small manufactures as was made was admittedly a step backward.
Then, in 1928 Stalin began the “Great Leap Forward” with the initiation of his first Five Year Plan. Forced industrialization and forced collectivization were undertaken on an unprecedented scale. This was accompanied by such terrorism as had hardly been experienced before. Eugene Lyons has summarized the impact of this undertaking in the following manner:
The plan was launched like a war of conquest directed against the whole population….
In a mystic transport of “historic mission,” the regime doomed millions to extinction, tens of millions to thinly disguised slavery, the whole nation to incredible suffering. Upon the alleged “completion” and “fulfillment” of the plan, half the country was caught in a fearful famine, the other half was on short rations, agriculture was wrecked, the forced-labor population in camps was nearing the ten-million mark….1
This particular interlude had many dimensions of terror, some of which would not be repeated, at least not on this scale. The most horrendous persecution was of the kulaks (small farmers) NEPmen (those engaged in private enterprise during the period of the New Economic Policy). These were disfranchised, deprived of their possessions, and, as Lyons says, “denied food rations and the right to schooling, driven from their homes, employed only as unskilled… labor, or simply left to beg and starve and die.”2 This was clearly ideological, an attempt to wipe out all vestiges of private enterprise. Clearly, too, the efforts at industrialization and collectivization were in accord with communist ideology. (The debate about whether Stalin’s methods were the best way to proceed are of interest only to those who believe that it can and ought somehow to be done.) The terror mounted as the attempt to impose the ideology was pursued.
Changes Since Stalin
It is important to grasp this point, because since the De-Stalinization of the late 1950′s there has been a widespread effort to treat the Stalin terror as an aberration. Stalin was not, according to this view, a good communist. He reveled in the Personality Cult built around him, and terror was his device for concentration of all power in his hands.
Now it may well be that Stalin contrived a personality cult, and there can be no doubt that he consolidated all power in his hands, but it does not follow that he was not a good communist. On the contrary, if the analysis and facts here presented are accepted, Stalin stands out as the best communist ever to emerge in the Soviet Union. He applied terror more rigorously and thoroughly than has ever been done, before or since. He did so in accord with the logic of communist ideology. His crimes were not an aberration from communism; they were the product of his attempt to impose it.
The ideological purpose of terror is to produce conformity with the Communist Party line. More broadly, the purpose is to bring a whole people under the sway of the ideology, to make them instruments to be used in a common concerted effort. If this is to be accomplished, all dissent must be wiped out, and all individual resistance must be crushed. “You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs,” Khrushchev said. Terror is the communist way to break eggs, and Stalin was its supreme exemplar.
At any rate, by the early 1930′s the terror began to fall into a pattern. It would not be correct to say that it was regularized, for that would suggest that there were rules which limited and made it predictable. It was never predictable for it was too arbitrary for that. Nor was it ever ritualized. Amongst civilized peoples many acts are ritualized, and especially those that have to do with life and death and detention. Communism discourages all ritual and tends to leave all acts as blunt and unembellished as possible. But there was a pattern to the terror.
First, the Arrest
Ordinarily, the first step is the arrest. It can happen at any time and any place. Alexander Dolgun, an American who spent about eight years in Soviet prisons and camps, was walking down a street in
The second step is to be taken to a prison in the vicinity of where one is arrested. The terror begins there, if it had not already begun. This is no ordinary prison, if there is such a thing. It is a place of interrogation, and the facilities are designed to bring maximum psychological and physical pressure to break the prisoner and make him confess. The terror may begin in this prison, but it does not end there, unless it ends in death. The terror settles upon the prisoner, as it were, rending his soul and marking him for life. (Not everyone is as sensitive as Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, but witness the Herculean effort he has made to tell the story to the world, in fictionalized accounts and in histories.)
Imprisonment
Jail is bad enough in the best of times and places. The initial experience is one of helplessness, of loss of control over one’s affairs, of being at the mercy of his captors. There are all sorts of things one knows he has to do, and yet his life is stopped, thrown into limbo, as it were. One may be buoyed at first by outraged innocence and the delusion that it is all a mistake. But in a Soviet prison all these must yield to something else, the necessity of clinging to sanity and the relics of selfness. All imprisonment involves loss of status and loss of respect of one’s former fellows. Yes, even in the Soviet Union, the thought will not down that one must have done something to incur the wrath of the authorities, though for those who know better among endangered acquaintances or family there may be a sense of outrage that the person was so stupid as to get himself arrested.
As soon as the fact of one’s being arrested and imprisoned becomes known, the terror, or fear, spreads to his family and acquaintances. The odds have now increased that they will suffer a similar fate. Alexander Dolgun’s mother was arrested:
They had arrested her in 1950. For months she had pestered the MGB (it was still MGB then) for news of me. At first they told her I had been shot as a spy. She had a breakdown. Shortly after she recovered she got my triangle letter from Kuibyshev, in which I asked whether the American Embassy had given her my personal belongings. She went to the embassy to demand help. At the gates the MGB arrested her. She was still emotionally very fragile. They beat her with rubber truncheons, trying to get her to incriminate me. They pushed needles under her fingernails. Now her nails would never be straight again. After a very short period of this she went quite insane and, without sentencing her, they put her in a prison insane asylum in Ryazan.3
When she was released from the asylum, she could get no help from the authorities to get a place to live, reclaim her property or maintain herself because she had not been sentenced. Dolgun’s father, too, had been imprisoned. Perhaps saddest of all, after Alexander Dolgun had been released and was living with his mother, the state of her mind was such that at times she believed him to be in the hire of the secret police and informing on her. There is no end to the terror.
The purpose of the initial imprisonment and interrogation is to extract a satisfactory confession from the prisoner. He will be interrogated for as short or as long a time as is needed to get the confession, or goes insane or dies from the tortures inflicted upon Kim. The usual method of getting a prisoner to confess is to put him on the conveyor, as it is called. The conveyor is a system of extended interrogation carried on by relays of interrogators, usually at night, broken by interludes of “rest” during the day in which the prisoner is not allowed to lie down or sleep. One careful student of the process describes it this way:
Interrogation usually took place at night and with the accused just roused—often only fifteen minutes after going to sleep. The glaring lights at the interrogation had a disorienting effect. There was a continual emphasis on the absolute powerlessness of the victim. The interrogators—or so it usually seemed—could go on indefinitely.
As one prisoner described the result:
After two or three weeks, I was in a semi-conscious state. After fifty or sixty interrogations with cold and hunger and almost no sleep, a man becomes like an automaton—his eyes are bright, his legs swollen, his hands trembling. In this state he is often even convinced he is guilty.4
Obtaining Confession
Most men, and women, probably crumble within a few days and provide the desired confession. If they do not, or cannot (for it is by no means easy to determine what to confess), they may be subjected to other tortures as well as or in addition to that of the conveyor. The tortures may be simple or exquisite; an interrogator may suddenly jump up and begin to beat the prisoner with his fists. They may be as simple as feeding a prisoner salt fish and allowing him no water for a day, or as exquisite as placing him in a room with water covering the floor and no place to sit. A present-day Soviet writer tells this poignant story of the torture of a woman (in a book that had to be published outside the
Nestor Lakoba, poisoned by Beria and posthumously declared an “enemy of the people,” left a wife who would not sign any false statements about him. A young and beautiful woman, rumored to be a Georgian princess, she was arrested and put in the Tbilisi prison soon after her husband’s death. Nutsa Gogoberidze, the wife of Levan Gogoberidze, who shared a cell with Lakoba’s wife, tells how this silent and calm woman was taken away every evening and was dragged back to the cell, bloody and unconscious. The women cried, asked for a doctor and revived her. When she came to, she told how they demanded that she sign an essay on the subject “How Lakoba sold Abkhazia to Turkey.” Her reply was brief: “I will not defame the memory of my husband.” She stood fast even when faced with the ultimate torture: her fourteen-year old son was shoved crying toward his mother, and she was told he would be killed if she did not sign. (And this threat… was carried out.) But even then Lakoba’s wife would not defame her husband. Finally, after a night of torture, she died in her cell.5
Most people are not, of course, cut out of such a heroic mold, and the interrogator was not often denied the confession he sought.
Confess What?
What would be a satisfactory confession? Anyone innocent of knowledge of the Soviet secret police, and their masters, might suppose that what was wanted was a confession in accord with the facts. But this was usually unnecessary and unwanted. The aim of the interrogators was not facts at all in the accepted sense of something that has happened and can be verified by independent data. Facts belong to the real world of happenings and events. What they wanted belongs to a posited, an imaginary, a mentally constructed world in accord with communist ideology and the Party line.
The most grotesque facade of all in Soviet Communism was the facade erected from the tissue of these confessions. It was a facade compounded of assassination plots, of foreign controlled spy networks, of domestic conspiracies, of industrial sabotage, of agricultural espionage, of fascist traitors, of “right wing deviationists,” of “left wing deviationists,” of Trotskyists, and so on. The picture that emerges from the confessions is a massive intertwined series of conspiracies and plots to undermine, thwart, and destroy Communism in Russia. Millions of people were supposed to be involved, and many nations around the world were aiding and abetting it. All other conspiracy theories pale beside this one, for none other can produce millions of confessions to “prove” its case.
A Documented Rationale for Soviet Actions
This facade of confessions constituted a huge “documented” rationale for Soviet actions and failures. The terror had the broad purpose of subduing the people and making them conform to the will of their rulers as well as the narrower purpose of producing confessions. But the confessions, we may believe, had a different purpose—to justify the regime to itself and to such others as were apprized of the “evidence.” Was there a crop failure in some province? The explanation was at hand: saboteurs had provided rotten seed or the fertilizer had been tampered with. Did a factory fail to meet its quota? Saboteurs must have been at work there. In the Show Trials of the 1930′s a man named Pyatakov made this confession:
In the Ukraine the work was carried on mainly in the coke industry by Loginov and a group of persons connected with him. Their work, in the main, consisted of starting coke ovens which were not really ready for operations, and of holding up the construction of very valuable and very important parts of the coke and chemical industry….
The wrecking activities in the last period assumed new forms. Despite the fact that, after a delay of two or three years, the plant began to enter on its operation stage Maryasin created intolerable conditions, fomented intrigues, and in a word everything to obstruct operation.6
Even the terror itself might be “justified” by these conspiracies and plots. The government, it was made to appear, was vigilantly capturing and punishing its enemies. Indeed, the secret police could provide signed confessions of any sort of wrongdoing which the rulers ordered. The number of people who could be implicated was limited only by the number of secret policemen who could be assigned to getting confessions.
Once a confession had been extracted, one along the desired lines, the next step was to sentence the prisoner. He could be sentenced in one of two ways: after a trial or by the “organs,” i.e., the secret police. So far as the question of guilt or innocence was concerned, it did not matter which way was taken. In fact, there was never any question of guilt or innocence once a person had been arrested. He was guilty. The only question was, of what?
The Farce of a Trial
The trials that were held were farcical. Their lack of dignity was apparent during the Moscow Show Trials when Andrei Vyshinsky, the Chief Prosecutor, would howl to the court, “Shoot the dirty dog,” or words to that effect. If a defense lawyer appeared, his effectiveness was sullied by the necessity for him to show his loyalty to the government. Even the sentences must have been prepared in advance of the trial. Robert Conquest points out that the trial of Evgenia Ginzburg took seven minutes. “The Court returned in two minutes with a ‘verdict’ which she estimates must have taken twenty minutes to type.”7
The only real question to be answered by the sentencing was whether the prisoner was to be shot or sent for a number of years to a forced labor camp. True, the length of sentences varied, but whether it was for five, ten, or twenty-five years mattered less than it should have, for the “organs” could add an additional sentence when the first was completed if they saw fit. An important point to be grasped here is that once a prisoner had made, signed, and, if he was to be publicly tried, given, his confession, his purpose had been served. He became a nonperson, a thing, to be disposed of in whatever way the authorities might decide.
If he was to be shot, the sentence was usually carried out summarily. He was, according to lore, escorted to some dungeon room by secret police and shot in the back of the neck. No ceremony was involved; it was economical and effective. The price was the cost of a bullet, and a well-placed single shot severs the spinal column at the neck, bringing an end to sensation and probably instant death. Torture would have been superfluous at this point, since a confession had already been obtained, so the prisoner was simply dispatched in the most expeditious way.
Forced Labor Camps
Those send to forced labor camps were almost certainly sentenced to a fate worse than death. It might be more accurate to say that in most cases they were sentenced to a fate worse than, as well as, death. The vast majority died, according to such testimony as we have, en route to or in the camps. What could happen en route to a camp was vividly told by a Pole, Andrey A. Stotski, who was a Soviet prisoner during World War II. There were 1,400 prisoners when they set out on their journey to the far frozen north. A long portion of the journey was in the hold of a barge. They were fed, when and as they were, by bread and soup lowered into the hold on hooks. These same hooks were used to lift those who died to the topside where they could be dumped into the sea. Let him take up the account:
The deaths were so frequent by this time that the guards left the hooks within our reach, so that all we had to do was fasten them into the body and jerk the ropes hard. Among the last victims was one from our number—one of the White Ruthenians. From our memories of a life that was now an eternity away, we recalled the prayers for the dead and commended to God this soul who had surely gone to Him. How we envied this man whose troubles were now over. And yet none of us could bring our will to the point of suicide. No, death would have to come when God pleased.8
Seven hundred twenty-seven of the 1400 who had begun the journey survived this voyage. They then began the walk to the mines. On the way, they stopped for a while in a barracks, some fifty of their number were unable to continue the journey. “Before we were well away,” he says, “the sound of pistol shots, at deliberately measured brief intervals, reached us.”9 They had been shot. About 400 eventually reached the camp.
The transfer from prison to forced labor camp was from torture to torment. There were at least two dimensions to this torment. One was psychological, and, if possible, it was the worst because of its impact on the human spirit.
The necessary environment to human dignity, even to humanness, is the sense that the individual has worth, that life has meaning, that each of us is important. The graces of culture and the outworks of civilization combine to support the belief that each individual is of great worth. The newborn baby is surrounded by attendants; the father has waited anxiously for the birth; relatives are eager to know its sex, weight, height, and who it looks like. The infant is given a name, staking out its individuality and uniqueness, as it were. Family and friends tend to provide the necessary warmth for nurturing human dignity. When a child becomes a man, he usually attains additional support from his job or position for his status as a valuable person. Even in death, the importance of the individual is celebrated by the commemorative services: the assembly of friends and loved ones, the expressions of grief and condolences, the rituals of burial, and the marking of the spot where the body has been placed. All this, of course, helps to reassure the living of the worth of the individual.
Stripped of Dignity
The forced labor camps stripped away every remnant of support to human dignity, except such as the most resolute could store in their hearts. “Life is meaningless,” the forced labor camps seemed to say, “An individual is of no account.” Solzhenitsyn has called the camps “Our Sewage Disposal Systems.” This human garbage, these pitiful human beings, squeezed dry by torture and confession, were shipped off to remote areas to remove them from the sight and smell of others who were, relatively, alive and free. Everything in the camps confirmed that the prisoners were garbage: the language of the guards, the tattered rags the prisoners wore, the absence of amenities, and the cheapness of life. Tales abound of prisoners being shot merely because they stepped out of line in a formation or could not keep up.
Here is a story that reveals the assault on life in the camps. A prisoner made a dash for freedom. Other prisoners wanted to run after him and persuade him to return, but the guards would not permit it. Then, a guard by the name of Vanya took off across the ice and snow in a sleigh pulled by seven dogs in an effort to capture the man. The prisoner did not last long, for he was emaciated, and he had fallen to the ground by the time Vanya reached him. He was tied to the sled and dragged back to camp. Though he was horribly torn and bleeding, he was still alive. Vanya unleashed a vicious dog named Nora, expecting that she would tear at and destroy the man:
Nora rose and slowly and cautiously approached the wretch on the ground, while all of us held our breath. The beast sniffed all around him and then opened wide her terrible mouth, and with her long, rough tongue began to lick Sasha’s bleeding body. Finally she lay down by the remains of the man, pushing up close to him as if to protect him from the cold.
Vanya cursed and went off without a word. Somebody among the prisoners began to sob. Nora pushed still closer to what had once been a man.¹º
Brutes, of course, are incapable of evil, for they know no such distinctions. Man, however, is, and the greatest evil is to attempt to deprive life of its meaning.
In these circumstances, men grasp for something that will supply meaning. The Reverend Richard Wurmbrand has told in one of his books how men greedily gathered around anyone who could remember and quote Scriptures, for they were indeed “Wonderful Words of Life.” Alexander Dolgun relates how he survived in a cell dominated by regular criminals—the most brutal of all—by his ability to recall the plots to movies. We can surmise that what was of such importance to stories, aside from their value as entertainment, was that one could glean from them some glimmer of life with meaning.
A Polish woman prisoner in a Soviet camp tells how she was approached one day by one of the most vicious and cruel girls in the camp. This conversation ensued:
“Listen, you Polish lady, now that we are alone, tell me—” she hesitated, looking around to see that we were really alone. “I saw you, and I know you pray. Tell me, is there a God?”
My grip relaxed on the bucket. [She had been prepared to defend herself.] “There is.”
“How do you know?”
“Because I pray every day and God does take care of me….”
“Tell me,” she began again. “Tell me, what is it like in your country?… Is life in your country different from ours here? Is it true that people can really enjoy life there?”
“It is true, Katiushka,” and I described to her what life was like in Poland. [This was Pre-Communist Poland.]
“You see,” she sighed wearily when I stopped speaking, “I, too, would so like to have enjoyed life—to enjoy life!”11
The other source of torment in the camps was the work and accompanying hunger and debilitation. The economy of the forced labor camps was a grotesque parody of the dismal science, economics, as conceived by Malthus and Ricardo and revised by Marx. The natural price of labor, Ricardo had said, is the cost of subsistence. These prison camps went much further: they attempted to squeeze the maximum “surplus value” from these wretches by denying the necessities for subsistence to all except those who could meet the most unrealistic quotas of production. Thus, men endured cold, hunger, disease, lack of meaning, and faced eventual death in fruitless efforts to meet quotas. In some occupations, such as logging in the far frozen north, death came to most workers rather quickly. Those who survived the camps were apt to do so because they managed somehow to get the easiest jobs.
The Value of Private Property
There is much to be learned from the experiences of men in such extreme conditions. One is the great value of private property. Prisoners had no private property, in the sense that the authorities could be depended on to protect it, but they did have a few pitiful possessions. These they treated as private property and protected by whatever means they could. Solzhenitsyn describes the watch over possessions in this way:
… In the evening, when you lay down on the naked panel, you could take off your shoes. But take into consideration that your shoes would be swiped. Better sleep with shoes on. Better not scatter your clothes about either—they’d swipe them too. On going out to work in the morning you must not leave anything in the barracks; whatever the thieves did not bother to take the jailers would, announcing, “It’s forbidden!” In the morning you would go out to work just as nomads depart from a camp site, leaving it even cleaner….
But you couldn’t cart anything off to work with you either. You would gather up your chattels in the morning, stand in line at the storeroom for personal belongings, and hide them in a bag or a suitcase. You’d return from work and stand in line again at the storeroom and take with you what you could foresee you would want overnight….12
Those who have never known such extremities have sometimes supposed that property rights are secondary to others. But when men are deprived of all except the relics of property, they cling to these as the last hope against total deprivation and death. Any property that one has is also a toehold on the way to reclaiming dignity, meaning, all other rights, legality, and liberty itself.
This, then, was the reign of terror. It is often said nowadays that the Soviet regime is a stable one. If it is, it is testimonial to the effectiveness of terror in producing stability. We come much nearer to the truth, however, when we view it as a lawless regime ruled over by gangsters in the service of ideology. Stability means only that the people are subdued.
The impact of the terror on the prisoners has been examined. It is now in order to explore the effect on the population in general.
Next: 8.
—FOOTNOTES—
¹Eugene Lyons, Worker’s
3Alexander Dolgun with Patrick Watson, Alexander Dolgun’s Story: An American in the Gulag (New York: Ballantine, 1975), p. 446.
4Robert Conquest, The Great Terror (Toronto: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 140-41.
5Roy A. Medvedev, Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 269.
6Conquest, op. cit., pp. 167-68.
7 Ibid., p. 311.
8lsaac Don Levine, Plain Talk (New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1976), p. 263. 9Ibid, p. 266.
10Ibid., p. 273.
11Ibid., pp. 289-90.
12Alexsandr
