Editing Samizdat (section)

===Political===
The majority of samizdat texts were politically focused.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=572}} Most of the political texts were personal statements, appeals, protests, or information on arrests and trials.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=574}} Other political samizdat included analyses of various crises within the USSR, and suggested alternatives to the government's handling of events.

No unified political thought existed within samizdat; rather, authors debated from a variety of perspectives. Samizdat written from socialist, democratic and [[Slavophilia|Slavophile]] perspectives dominated the debates.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=576}} Socialist authors compared the current state of the government to the [[Marxism|Marxist]] ideals of socialism and appealed to the state to fulfil its promises. Socialist samizdat writers hoped to give a "human face" to socialism by expressing dissatisfaction with the system of censorship.{{sfn|Meerson-Aksenov|Shragin|1977|p=47}} Many socialists put faith in the potential for reform in the Soviet Union, especially because of the political liberalization which occurred under [[Alexander Dubček|Dubček]] in Czechoslovakia. However, the Soviet Union invasion of a liberalizing Czechoslovakia, in the events of "[[Prague Spring]]", crushed hopes for reform and stymied the power of the socialist viewpoint.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=587}} Because the state proved itself unwilling to reform, samizdat began to focus on alternative political systems. In Czechoslovakia itself, it became central to the [[Czechoslovak underground|underground counter-culture]] emerging under the [[normalization regime]] that followed the invasion.

[[File:Samizdat Zhores Medvedev International Scientific Cooperation Cover.jpg|thumb|A typewritten edition of ''National Frontiers and International Scientific Cooperation'' by [[Zhores Medvedev]]]]
Within samizdat, several works focused on the possibility of a democratic political system. Democratic samizdat possessed a revolutionary nature because of its claim that a fundamental shift in political structure was necessary to reform the state, unlike socialists, who hoped to work within the same basic political framework to achieve change. Despite the revolutionary nature of the democratic samizdat authors, most democrats advocated moderate strategies for change. Most democrats believed in an evolutionary approach to achieving democracy in the USSR, and they focused on advancing their cause along open, public routes, rather than underground routes.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=587–588}}

In opposition to both democratic and socialist samizdat, Slavophile samizdat grouped democracy and socialism together as Western ideals that were unsuited to the Eastern European mentality. Slavophile samizdat brought a nationalistic Russian perspective to the political debate and espoused the importance of cultural diversity and the uniqueness of Slavic cultures. Samizdat written from the Slavophile perspective attempted to unite the USSR under a vision of a shared glorious history of Russian autocracy and [[Russian Orthodox Church|Orthodoxy]]. 

Consequently, the fact that the USSR encompassed a diverse range of nationalities and lacked a singular Russian history hindered the Slavophile movement. By espousing frequently racist and anti-Semitic views of Russian superiority, through either purity of blood or the strength of Russian Orthodoxy, the Slavophile movement in samizdat alienated readers and created divisions within the opposition.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=588}}