Simply tinkering with the economy or even offering greater material incentives will not be adequate. It requires liberalization of the overall political and intellectual climate to restore some legitimacy to the regime in the eyes of its population, and to make people believe that they have some stake in the system, no matter how illusory this is in reality. Only then will they be prepared to make the sacrifices the regime will require. Although innovative, General Secretary Khrushchev has realized that such a policy is fraught with dangers and has definite limits. There will have to be change, but not too great as to threaten the ruling group’s hold on power. The system has to be reformed, but without weakening the rudimentary class…show more content… His conflict shows us the peasant’s dignity in the depths of deprivation. His full tolerance of his new identity and of his camp life, and his remarkable ability to build a worthwhile existence for himself out of the capricious camp system, make him a spiritual hero. His intensity in living, eating, and working puts him in control of his world. This is exemplified when Shukhov labors on a brick wall, the narrator says that he concentrates on it as if he owned every inch of it. In a way, although he is a slave, he is still the leader of his own small dominion. He is not an aristocrat by birth, but inwardly he is proud, dominant, and invulnerable. Accordingly, immortalizing Shukhov through publication will paint a poignant portrait of survival to the Soviet people, with the added bonus of expediting the liberalization of the national political and intellectual climate.
The best and ideal potential repercussion of publishing “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” is a domestic and foreign thaw, signaling a break from the Stalin era. However, the publication does run the risk of provoking a reactionary movement that will threaten the General Secretary and his rule. This manuscript may embolden other writers into not only criticizing Stalin but General Secretary Khrushchev himself, undermining his authority. The response from the masses might be too large for the government to control. The political leadership does not exist in a vacuum; even under Stalin, the leadership