Editing Samizdat (section)

==Genres==
Samizdat covered a large range of topics, mainly including literature and works focused on religion, nationality, and politics.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=572}} The state censored a variety of materials such as detective novels, adventure stories, and science fiction in addition to dissident texts, resulting in the underground publication of samizdat covering a wide range of topics. Though most samizdat authors directed their works towards the intelligentsia, samizdat included lowbrow genres in addition to scholarly works.{{sfn|Komaromi|2004|p=606}}

Hyung-Min Joo carried out a detailed analysis of an archive of samizdat (Архив Самиздата, ''Arkhiv Samizdata'') by ''[[Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty|Radio Liberty]]'', sponsored by the [[United States Congress|US Congress]] and launched in the 1960s, and reported that of its 6,607 items, 1% were literary, 17% nationalist, 20% religious, and 62% political, noting that as a rule, literary works were not collected there, so their 1% (only 73 texts) are not representative of their real share of circulation.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=572}}

===Literary===
[[File:Samizdat Vasily Grossmann Everything Flows Cover.jpg|thumb|A typewritten edition of ''Everything Flows'' by [[Vasily Grossman]], Moscow]]
In its early years, samizdat defined itself as a primarily literary phenomenon that included the distribution of poetry, classic unpublished Russian literature, and famous 20th century foreign literature.{{sfn|Stelmakh|2001|p=148}} Literature played a key role in the existence of the samizdat phenomenon. For instance, the USSR's refusal to publish Boris Pasternak's epic novel, ''[[Doctor Zhivago (novel)|Doctor Zhivago]]'' led to the novel's subsequent underground publication.{{sfn|Meerson-Aksenov|Shragin|1977|p=27}} Likewise, the circulation of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's famous work about the gulag system, ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'', promoted a samizdat revival during the mid-1970s.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=575}} However, because samizdat by definition placed itself in opposition to the state, samizdat works became increasingly focused on the state's violation of human rights, before shifting towards politics.{{sfn|Meerson-Aksenov|Shragin|1977|p=30}}

===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}}

===Religious===
Predominantly Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostalist, and Adventist groups authored religious samizdat texts. Though a diversity of religious samizdat circulated, including three Buddhist texts, no known Islamic samizdat texts exist. The lack of Islamic samizdat appears incongruous with the large percentage of Muslims who resided in the USSR.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=574}}

===National===
Jewish samizdat advocated for the end of repression of Jews in the USSR and some expressed a desire for ''[[aliyah]]'', the ability to leave Russia for an Israeli homeland. The ''aliyah'' movement also broached broader topics of human rights and freedoms of Soviet citizens.<ref>Meerson-Aksenov, "The Jewish Question in the USSR – The Movement for Exodus," 385–86.</ref> However, a divide existed within Jewish samizdat between more militant authors who advocated Jewish emigration and wrote mostly in politically-focused periodicals, and those who argued that Jews should remain in the USSR to inculcate Jewish consciousness and culture, writing in periodicals centered on cultural-literary information.<ref name="Ro’i2010">{{cite web |last1=Ro’i |first1=Yaacov |title=YIVO {{!}} Samizdat |url=https://yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Samizdat |website=The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe |publisher=YIVO Institute for Jewish Research |access-date=12 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110415123100/http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Samizdat |archive-date=15 April 2011 |date=14 October 2010}}</ref> 

[[Crimean Tatars]], [[Volga Germans]], and [[Meskhetian Turks]] also created samizdat literature, protesting the state's refusal to allow them to return to their homelands following Stalin's death. Descriptions in the samizdat literature of Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, and Meskhetian Turks documenting the political injustices borne by those peoples are dominated by references to "genocide" and "concentration camps".<ref name="Zisserman-Brodsky2003">{{cite book |last1=Zisserman-Brodsky |first1=D. |title=Constructing Ethnopolitics in the Soviet Union: Samizdat, Deprivation and the Rise of Ethnic Nationalism |date=2003 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-1-4039-7362-7 |pages=74–75 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1jbHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74}}</ref> Ukrainian samizdat opposed the assumed superiority of Russian culture over the Ukrainian and condemned the [[Russification of Ukraine|forced assimilation of Ukrainians]] to the Russian language.{{sfn|Joo|2004|p=573–574}}