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?
In answer to questions 2 and 3 of the first set:
The capacity by which Soviet citizens would interact with this Socialist Realism literature would, I assume, be based upon party involvement or a sense of national pride in part to create the ideal Soviet identity we referred to in class previously, an identity that throws all prior art and culture so as not to corrupt this new, experimental government aimed at representing the common people with ideals that are rooted elsewhere and deemed dangerous to the party’s goals.
As for how the government would incentivize such literature, due to the crackdown on more liberal policies during the time of Stalin, it would be natural to assume that other literature with contrasting ideals would possibly have been made scarce, as well as the fact that by going out of one’s way to read such work, a person is, in a sense, proving their support of the cause. I can easily see rewards being distributed differently in various party affiliated groups so as to reward those with a stronger devotion to such art and writing and stem further creation and inspiration within the USSR via positive reinforcement.
In answer to question 3 of the second set:
Comparing “How the Steel Was Tempered” to “Behind the Urals,” one can easily see a contrast from the start. Whereas “Behind the Urals” in many ways did not shy away from conveying a grim, dark, and realistic portrayal of factory life for Soviet workers, HTSWT instead shows itself to be a more glorious portrayal. It still strives to have believable experiences, interactions, and tone (to some extent), but it also differs in conveying key details. For example, the part on page 415 where Toptalo and Pavel charge the Polish machine gunners is made out to be quite glorious and heroic despite the obvious fear both would have felt. This human factor is ignored and instead we see a magnificent portrayal of bravery that seems to continue for quite some time, in spite of the deaths that occurred. Where John Scott would likely have stopped to aid fallen comrades and compose himself with the loss of a close friend, instead the effort seems to continue without pause or delay as the Soviets rush to liberate the prison. This lack of connection is quite ironic given the strong emphasis the Soviets gave on caring for each other socially and economically, but it would seem to aid in propaganda of the period.
I would expect an average proletarian to feel encouraged or even solidified by social reality literature as it would further enhance a message that they are living their daily lives by. To suppress leftist or Bourgeois writings and uplift social realism would invoke a sort of determination amongst Soviet workers. It would simply be another form of propaganda that is already everywhere.
When looking at how Soviets could incentivize reading various works, I would agree with Ian’s response in that this concept would vary in party-affiliated groups. I think this idea could even go back to the promotion of Stokhanovite ideas. An expert could even say “A true Stakhanovite would read this piece of literature, and will receive a reward for doing so.”
Regarding the possible incentives for consuming Soviet literature, I concur with John and Ian in that the Soviets would find success in positive reinforcement; the party has proved this to be a viable tactic for Shock Workers. Despite the party’s efforts to encourage equality, seldom are loyal party members not uplifted in some capacity. The implementation of a positive reward system for loyal, educated party members would boost the consumption of Soviet literature.
Going off of Ian’s comment in response to implementation of this new wave of literature, I agree completely. I feel as though Stalin and the Party would have to almost entirely wipe out bourgeois literature and make this new socialist realism the only readily accessible works. One would have to go out of their way to get their hands on past works, and that may deem them by their community as anti-Soviet. I also think that strong leaders within local villages/towns could be given a responsibility to educate others on the new artistic movement. These “leaders” could aid in implementing this new movement in schools, meetings, etc. These leaders could be the shock workers/members of the Stakhanovite movement, such as what Paige said. This positive reinforcement has already proved powerful in creating a class-driven movement, so this may also be succesful.
Questions 2 & 3 of the first half:
I am largely going to echo Ian’s thought process as I also saw the connections with the way the new art movement was being portrayed. I think, from the USSR perspective, as long as the literature is out there, that is most important. As long as it is out there, somebody will connect with it. I think the ultimate hope is that those who have access to the literature and the ability to understand it will share the authors thoughts with other people. The problem with this hope is that the system seems to be punishing/relocating those who might be in the position to spread these thoughts, such as stronger farmers or better industry workers.
In regards to incentives, the literature could be spread through the factories or collective farmers and there could be incentives for workers/farmers who are seen either reading the literature or teaching/helping others understand it. From our previous readings on the lives of farmers and factory workers, there is clearly spying going on towards these workers/farmers so why not use it in another productive manner? If a higher ranking person sees the spreading of Soviet literature in the masses of workers, there should be positive incentive for that worker who is spreading the ideas.
In reference to the second question in the second set, I believe the quote refers to the state of Soviet society. Earlier today in HIS 270, Dr. Goldman described the Soviet Union as an “ableist society” meaning simply that little regard was given for human life–only capability. I think that the idea of tempering steel, which is typically done by fire, is an appropriate comparison in tempering Soviets either by unrealistic expectations during the first five-year plan, incredibly cold working conditions, institutionalized cruelty, or other aspects of culture. These conditions not only hardened those that made it through them but weeded out those that could not. This shared hardship built the aspects of the Soviet community and forced hardship built up the Soviet Union as an industrial power. The ethical and moral ramifications and questions of the tempering of Soviets in such cruelty is an important but different conversation.
It is interesting that the working conditions for Blast Furnace workers and Steel Workers were extremely similar. It showed that the lack of organization of the safety committee was so poorly done that no industry had proper safety measures to go off of. Instead, everyone suffered from a lack of supplies and other safety measures.