Russia, the Soviet Union, and the CIS (HIS240 S20)

I think that it is incredibly important and valuable to study dissent in the case of the Great Purge. Eugenia Ginzburg seems to be deeply troubled by the effects of Stalinism and increasingly conscious of the true nature of the purge. Writing in “Into the Whirlwind,” Ginzburg recalls her expulsion from the party by a former pupil of hers; “Some actors in the horror play had been cast as victims, others as persecutors, and these were the worse off (Ginzburg 40,41).” Her words hint at her sympathy for party members who were indoctrinated into this ready compliance. I think that her evaluation of individuals through their character, intent, and contextual actions is a very important point to note when contrasted against the black and white decisions of the NKVD. Ginzburg gives us a unique perspective as an intellectual. Her status as a teacher and a writer in the Soviet Union are important to her narrative. Her education is probably a factor that led her to be able to question the policies of Stalinism.

While, at least through her lens, her innocence is clear, how do we evaluate her story? Simply, how do the intelligentsia become enemies of the state and is there really a place for them in Soviet Society?

In the Cult of Personality slide show, we can clearly see how Stalin sought to prop himself up as the only viable leader for the Soviet Union…a strong individual, chosen by Lenin (although not really) to continue the great communist experiment in the USSR. In slide 5, Stalin shares the image with Lenin while he, Lenin, seems to look on approvingly at what Stalin is presenting him. The sense of frame works to solidify Stalin’s place as Lenin’s successor and paint a clear line from Lenin to himself, even though in reality, the line was somewhat obscured due to the various ousts that occurred in order for Stalin to attain his position. By the mid 1930s to the early 1950s, Lenin has an increasingly small appearance in these political paintings and propaganda images. In “The Politiburo,” (slide 6) Lenin is merely a bust in the back of the party meeting, as is the case with “Stalin at the 16 Party Congress” (slide 7). In “Beloved Stalin, Happiness of the People!,” all we see of Lenin is a small portrait somebody in the crowd is raising above their head. By 1950 in “Glory to the Great Stalin!,” (slide 8) Lenin is nowhere to be found. In other media he without a doubt makes some appearances, but the seemingly steady decrease in his prominence could easily be viewed as Stalin truly taking control of the party and reshaping it, and by extension the nation, in his own image.

In “On the Inadequacies of Party Work,” Stalin frames outsiders as the enemy. The Trotskyists, the Germans, the Japanese, and the capitalists who would love to see the Soviet Union fail. This is an important shift. It builds upon Lenin’s criticisms of an economic enemy who seeks the USSR’s destruction, but it also shifts the focus to the two main Fascist/Imperialist nations who at this point in time are seeking to expand their influence and regain territory. In 1931 Japan had invaded Manchuria, and in 1936 Germany re-militarized the Rhineland. Since these two increasingly powerful countries were essentially the growing bookends of the USSR, it is notable that Stalin sees them as a growing danger by 1937 (perhaps not militarily, but ideologically, geographically, and strategically). Both governments, as Fascist in nature, exhibited a sense of hyper-capitalism in the relations between government and industry, and with the fascist vs. communist Spanish Civil War was playing out, the fear of such countries weakening the USSR became not only a danger to Soviet communist ideology, but in extension, to Stalin’s power itself. The NKVD’s ideological crackdowns in 1937, explained in “Into the Whirlwind” (page 6 of the .pdf document) could, in light of these events, be seen as a response to an ever growing threat of foreign capitalism/fascism and an effort to further purify the party’s ranks. The extent to which the government went to could be viewed as paranoid, but it is reasonable to say that while the threat to the USSR was present, it was possibly exaggerated to increase the economic output of the country and encourage that foundation of a strong national identity.

What do these images reveal about Stalin’s self-presentation to various audiences?

In almost all of the images, Stalin is portrayed to be the tallest figure along with the figure who facilitates the most power. As a leader of the Soviet Union, his self-presentation is a very important aspect to consider. No one is going to look up to a leader if they don’t display themselves as someone who has power, initiative, knowledge and even relations with the population in which he governs. In these images, Stalin’s power is clear along with his “compassion” for the people. He also demonstrates his initiative with his activism in supporting women’s equality, which supports that he is for the people. As I mentioned previously, in the images Stalin is always the tallest, except for whenever Lenin is included. Do you think that there is a deeper meaning behind Lenin almost looking over Stalin in these images? What do you think the presence of Lenin as a higher power or overshadowing figure does to his self-presentation?

‘On the inadequacies of party work’ paints a terrifying picture of the Soviet Union; the Trotskyists are spying on the Soviet Union, they have infiltrated all levels of society, and the party has done nothing to stop them. At a glance, these claims are frightening and would elicit fear from any reader, but a closer read reveals that Stalin’s claims simply work to support his personal agenda. Specifically, Stalin carefully constructs a fearful environment in which secret spies and murderers are lurking around every corner– plotting the downfall of the Soviet Union. Stalin does a great job of diverting any blame of fault away from himself and unto the Party, jealous capitalists, and foes–Germany & Japan. It is not by chance that Stalin is a skilled rhetorician, the cult of personality slide show emphasizes Stalin’s narcissism (a term I use based on the official criterion for NPD and acknowledgement that I’m not a psychiatrist). In many of the photos, Stalin is seen standing (blog slideshow #s 1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ,6 ,7, 8 ,9,11,13,14,15,16,18) and towering over those he is seen with while, according to ABC News, Stalin only stood 5’5. Aside from appearing physically large and assertive, Stalin’s face appears welcoming and even seems to smile (blog slideshow #s 15, 17). How does Stalin alter his persona to elicit his desired response from those around him (Party, citizens, etc.)? Can you have a powerful leader without traits of narcissism (again, using this term with caution)? Stalin has used many tactics during his rule, the main weapons being fear and admiration, how successful are these and where have you seen these manifest? Link for NPD criterion referenced, Kernberg, Otto F. “Pathological Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Theoretical Background and Diagnostic Classification.” In Aggressivity, Narcissism, and Self-Destructiveness in the Psychotherapeutic Rela: New Developments in the Psychopathology and Psychotherapy of Severe Personality Disorders, 45-59. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2004. Accessed February 25, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npb07.6. Link for ABC referenced, Watt, Nick, and Jenna Mucha. “World’s Leaders Don’t Stand So Tall.” ABC News. ABC News Network, July 23, 2008. Accessed February 25, 2020. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5314996&page=1.

Andrei Zhdanov, “Soviet Literature-the Richest in Ideas”

“Soviet Literature-the Richest in Ideas” by Andrei Zhdanov is all about using socialist literature as vessel to empower the working class. Zhadanov believes that writers are “engineers of the heart” and highlights the tenants that writers must encapsulate. First, they must depict art not in a scholastic way but in a revolutionary reality. Second, they should combine truthfulness with ideological remolding. And third they should make sure that their writing is very political in nature. Zhandov devotes time in his speech to tearing down Bourgeoise literature, calling it akin to pornography and denouncing it as unrelatable. After praising the art of socialist realism, Zhandov explains it is imperative for the average worker must engage with this material. 

Questions:

• Zhdanov posits that the overall effect of socialist realism is to, “Create works of high attainment, of high ideological and artistic content. Actively help to remold the mentality of people in the spirit of socialism. Be in the front ranks of those who are fighting for a classless socialist society.” In what ways does How The Steel Was Tempered exemplify these goals, and in what ways does HTSWT fail to exemplify these goals???
• In what capacity would the average proletarian be able to interact with this type of literature? 
• What would the government potentially do to incentivize citizens to read socialist realism?
• Does How the Steel Was Tempered depict a working class character that is realistic and accurate to the average worker?

Nikolai Ostrovsky, “How the Steel was Tempered,” p. 387-435.

Palev Korchagin, a boy who gets kicked out of school for pranking his priest-teacher, ends up going through a journey that starts at darkness and takes him to the light of a good Soviet worker. His Bolshevik journey begins by having his brother’s friend, Fyodor, hide out with him for a few nights from the Ukrainian Nationalists, and eventually, help free Fyodor from them and going to jail. Thus, Pavel went to join the Red army. Throughout his journey, he faces much within the aspect of life and death situations, but no matter what continues to work and for the most part enjoys the work.

Questions:

• What Soviet characteristics stand out in Ostrovsky’s story of Pavel Korchagin of what makes a person a good soviet worker? What qualities does Pavel have that make this story such a notable soicalist realism piece?
• What does the quote, “‘You were right, Akim, when you said these lads were worth their weight in gold. This is where the steel is tempered!'” (Ostrovsky, 429) mean to the state of the Russian state in 1917?
• How can we compare Ostrovsky’s “How the Steel was Tempered” to John Scott’s “Behind the Urals” based on the working and living conditions of the workers? Is there a difference between how much work was done or the effectiveness of the work?

For the reading today, Angelina explains her situation and her early life of being a field laborer, much like her parents and community. During this phase in her early life, her community only had one tractor and her brother was the only one who knew how to operate it, but he was sent out of the community, leaving Angelina to take on the task and get certified. (Angelina, 310-12) Thus, prompted her to get more woman onto the tractors and begin her and the girls battle of being woman tractor drivers. Later on down the path, Angelina became and important figure in farming and eventually got into politics as a USSR Supreme Soviet deputy, as we know. (Angelina, 316-) With this in mind, I’d like to ask, to what extent did Angelina have to fight to prove that women had the ability to enter a male-dominated work force? And how was she able to succeed, even with all the backlash against her and her brigade? Also, Angelina provides a praise of Stalin and her life in the RSFSR, but how does this differ from the life of the Shayakhmetov in Kazakhstan?

Stalin’s statements made in “Dizzy with Success” shows clear signs of optimism regarding progress in the 5 Year Plan thus far, but also warns the audience of threats both internally as well as externally. He claims that citizens need to keep level headed and continue on the path that their on. He also condemns “Kulak” ideology in order to gain more support in his farm collectivization plan. He writes, “What may these distortions lead to? To the strengthening of our enemies and the discrediting of the idea of the collective farm movement.” After reading “The Silent Steppe” and “Behind the Urals,” we hear accounts from a Khazak “Kulak” family and an urban work. Putting yourself in each of their shoes, how would these two different characters take what is said in “Dizzy with Success”? How would you expect them to react to the claims made by Stalin?

“He had sown no crops.(Shayakhmetov, 13)” Shayakhemtov’s uncle was the “wealthiest” among them and was branded a kulak due to him having a decent amount of livestock. But as stated before, “he had sown no crops.” (Shay., 13). For me this one sentence had so much meaning behind it. Since the new grain laws were forced upon the peasants by the Stalin government, Shayakhemtov and his large family, had an idea of what was coming, but believed the problem was far from them. These people began to suffer from having no cash on hand to pay for grain to grow and harvest (Shay., 13). With this in mind, I’d like to think about why Shayakhemtov and his family stayed and didn’t move, or why did they stay? Along with this I ask, why was the government able to punish the poor peasants for something they (the government) had created and were doing nothing to help them? Lastly, what are your thoughts on the “guidelines” that makes someone a kulak.

Please think about these questions prior to class on Thursday. Feel free to provide input in the comments below. Make sure to read the following sources as well for discussion.

The Silent Steppe details the life of a Kazakhstan village and its residents amidst the chaos that is the Soviet push for collectivization, confiscation, and class restructuring.

Dizzy with Success was published by Stalin in 1930 and highlights what is needed for what he claims is the ultimate success of farm collectivization in light of what has been accomplished so far. He also warns of the issues and factors that could prevent the perceived continuation of this success.

Questions:

1. The beginning of the collective farm system proved to be very tumultuous, particularly with the crackdown on the so-called “kulaks.” We see in The Silent Steppe (Chapter 2) that such individuals were frequently made examples of. What does it say about the nature of Stalin’s leadership that rather than understand the plight of farmers who needed to rapidly change, many of such individuals were singled out and punished quite severely given their circumstances?
2. In Dizzy with Success, Stalin says that people “are often intoxicated by success,” and that this makes the USSR more vulnerable to its enemies. Was Stalin referring to enemies within the Soviet Union (class enemies), or threats from Western nations abroad?
3. Does the the beginning of the collective farm movement show similarities with the grain requisitioning that occurred during the Civil War? Think about how a party member would justify this policy and the perspective of the farmers across the USSR.

In his book “Behind the Urals”, John Scott describes the daily life of the working class in post-Bolshevik Revolutionary Russia (1933) in the town of Magnitogorsk. Scott’s descriptive narrative of people, places, and events allows the reader to emotionally understand the hardships that workers faced because of a lack of regulation, or in general, care for the workplace environment. When discussing the need for worker’s to have better clothing in the harsh Russian winters, Scott explains that “If there were no boots, then what could one do?” (Scott 29). The workers were well aware of their unsafe reality, and this narrative explores the true conditions that these people were forced to live through. Although this reality was clearly inhumane, the workers themselves seemed to succumb to these conditions and did not stir up immense revolts in order to achieve change. When talking about shop committees, which were theoretically designed to enforce workplace regulations, Scott says that “the reasons why the workers did not come to the meeting were pretty obvious to anyone who was looking for them. In the first place, the shop committee was almost dead. It did nothing to help defend workers against bureaucratic and over-enthusiastic administrators, and to assure the enforcement of the labor laws” (Scott 35). Enforcing proper conduct was not upheld by leaders, and only small fractions of workers attended these meetings to enhance the assurance of safer conditions. With this in mind, how do you think the Russian working class managed to stay on task at their jobs? Why was their such little anger towards lack of regulation right after the Bolshevik take over? How would you be able to convince yourself that what you are doing will pay off? How would you remain hopeful without the excitement of a real revolution?