Monthly Archives: March 2015

Out of the Ashes: Social Problems Faced by Soviet Children Post WWII

Posted on by

In her article, Juliane Furst  makes the claim that the Soviet Union emphasized two contradictory campaigns that attempted to rebuild a war torn country that suffered many losses in both human lives and economy.  These losses created a problem in that many of the youth of the country were to grow up impoverished and as orphans.  When the Party realized this, they attempted to eradicate the issue by initiating two ideologically opposite campaigns.  The Party attempted to attack the notion that this war would have an effect on Soviet ideals therefore discontinuing the Soviet project.  Before the war, the Soviets emphasized how molding the next generation of Soviets was essential for the survival of the Party according to Comrade Stalin.  Children must act, be educated, and live the Socialist way in order to give hope to the Soviet people that the Tsar and/or Capitalist way of life will not return to Russia.

The only question was how was this going to be achieved? Stalin knew that if he did not target this issue directly, it would bring decimation and ruin for the continuation to the Party.  Similar to the concept of the work camps , Stalin created the concept of the Juvenile camps.  Essentially the camps serve as labor centers just under a different name.  Stalin was smart to at least proclaim that the safety of the children was on the forefront of his reconstruction acts, as the propaganda of what were to happen should children fall into the Germans hands scared the whole country. Stalin was “saving” these displaced children by collectivizing them and then making them work in traditional Soviet fashion.  I propose that with the combination of poor and malnourished children without parental protection, children chose to turn to a life of thievery or were sent to these labor camps; a very dismal future either way.

Between Salvation and Liquidation

Posted on by

Juliane Fürst, a lecturer in the Department of Historical Studies at the University of Bristol, wrote “Between Salvation and Liquidation” for The Slavonic & East European Review published in 2008. In this article, Fürst discusses one of the most perceptible and disturbing consequences of WWII for the Soviet Union: vagrant and homeless children. They were unavoidable evidence of the damage the war had caused the Soviet Union- both physically and psychologically. Fürst analyzes the Soviet response to these children and gives us an idea of what this phenomenon looked like. These children were nothing like the perfect picture of Soviet childhood that had been painted. Fürst determines that the disconnect between this idea of Soviet childhood, and the reality of homeless and vagrant children allowed for the overall lack of acknowledgment and neglect these children suffered. The poor, orphaned children on the streets did not fit the established narrative of perfect Soviet childhoods, and were therefore ignored. This unwillingness to acknowledge and ultimate rejection of those who strayed from the narrative of integration and salvation is further indication of the Soviet stratagem that promoted collectivization by means of intolerant marginalization.

Lenin, What is to be Done

Posted on by

Lenin asserted five points regarding what a successful revolution needs. Firstly, he stated that no movement could succeed without “a stable organization of leaders to maintain continuity.” Secondly, that revolutionary organization becomes more important “as the masses are spontaneously drawn into the struggle,” which basically means that the larger the movement is, the more cohesive it must be. Thirdly, that the revolutionary organization must “consist chiefly of persons engaged in revolutionary activities as a profession.” Fourthly, that in countries with autocratic governments, the revolutionary organization would be harder to catch if it restricted people “who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police.” Fifthly, that if the revolutionaries “professionally trained in the art of combating the political police” were restricted, a larger amount and a wider variety of people would support the revolution.

What is to be Done?

Posted on by

In Vladimir Lenin’s What is to be Done?, he articulated his views regarding the composition and organizational structure of the SocialDemocratic Party. He believed that a proper revolution required a small, tightly knit, highly select, and politically well-versed group of individuals at the top to lead the party in the manner they saw most fit. He argued that a true revolutionary is somebody whose profession is that of a revolutionary. This true revolutionary is somebody who can commit their wholehearted time, energy, and passion to the cause, without being simultaneously hampered by the responsibilities of a “regular” job. Lenin asserted that, as the movement gained momentum and increased participation, the need for leadership was evermore present because certain factions may splinter off. He also noted that this group of “true revolutionaries” would be capable of thwarting the opposition’s attempts to undermine the cause because they have been “professionally trained in the art of combating police.” He criticized the Social Democrats who lumped the political struggle in with the “economic struggle against the employers and the government.” He viewed these two movements as important, yet distinct. Lenin believed that the majority of the labor force consisted of people who were uneducated and intellectually incapable of devising, organizing, and implementing the party’s strategic vision. He proposed that a “dozen” experienced revolutionaries should formulate initiatives that allow the other organizations intended for a wide membership to grow and prosper, thus accomplishing the party’s overall goals.

Revolutionaries

Posted on by

Revolutionaries are those who stand up for what they believe in and fight for their political rights and beliefs. They must be held to complete secrecy. This secrecy allows for further planning and for ideas to progress without prevention. While reading What is to be Done, 1902 by Lenin, He establishes that revolutionaries are an essential part of forming the revolution. During this, he greatly discusses how he disagrees in every aspect with the economist’s perspective. Lenin believed that there are a list of standards that must be met in order for there to be a true revolution. These rules and standards enforce structure as well as leaders guidance. These leaders will help set the rules and regulations. Lenin believed that these revolutionaries should be giving their full attention to this revolution. This revolution should be their profession. He believed in no distractions.Lenin wanted as many organizations as possible to get involved but not to confuse the idea of a revolution with other illegal activities such as readings that were not supposed to be read. Lenin explains that those who are not willing to put in the effort and fight for what they believe in are not revolutionaries.

Salvation and Liquidation: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Posted on by

Perception in the Soviet Union was one of the most critical concerns of the government, from identifying “kulaks,” real or imagined, to outing prisoners-of-war turned German spies, and the legions of orphaned vagrants in the streets were no exception.  The prospect of orphaned children in the public eye created a challenge to the effort to portray the Soviet Union as an idyllic society free of the capitalist-based sins of the West.  Eventually, however, children were subjected to the same “work or starve” ethic that their elders found themselves placed under, and the focus of rescuing wayward children became an initiative to build socialism rather than add any particular meaningful happiness to their lives.  Children were considered a symbol of the state, an innovative presence to foster for the future, and thus could not be allowed to become tainted or lose their value to the state.

More than merely failing to contribute to the image of a healthy Soviet family life, many vagrant children became beggars or thieves living on railways.  This blatant lawlessness struck at the regime as an inability to police their own house, as it were.  The government response to child-crime was a far cry from the salvation campaigns aimed at rescuing orphans.  Waifs were to be ousted from their train station hideouts in raids reminiscent of hunting game.  Just as children were measured in productivity by the same measure as older Soviets, so too were they subject to the same level of prosecution.

Lenin – Mouthpiece for the Future

Posted on by

Vladmir Lenin, a Russian Communist and revolutionary, was one of the most crucial, yet controversial, individuals of the twentieth century. Despite being born into a wealthy middle class family, he became interested in socialism and communism after Russian officials executed his brother in 1887.[1] Lenin wrote the text, What is to Be Done, just before the split of his party, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.[2] In his writing, Lenin depicted the type of revolutionary and system of organization that he wanted most and thought would work the best. He argued that the list of potential revolutionaries should be as wide and public as possible, that is, inclusive not solely of the working class, but others that wanted to join the cause as well. Lenin envisioned having revolutionaries based in multiple sectors of society. Furthermore, Lenin wanted his revolutionaries to treat the situation as an additional profession, if not their only profession. That meant that individuals who wished to become revolutionaries had to go through training and learn the necessary skills to be reliable and efficient. Lenin believed that if revolutionaries were trained, the organization would be harder to track down and it would allow more people to join up.  Lastly, Lenin emphasized that revolutionaries need to be willing to organize and work together, promoting stability; and thus allowing leaders to maintain continuity. Lenin concluded with a plea that demonstrated that too many current “revolutionaries” were using excuses and were not trained enough to complete their assignments. With his efficient system in place, Lenin believed that the revolution would work out better and that there would be no excuses for failure.

What makes Lenin’s theories so intriguing is that he essentially wants his revolutionaries to be trained like police officers or those in the military. While Lenin was not the first necessarily to propose this idea, it is apparent that other revolutions do not carry this form of revolutionary organization. Peasants and factory workers carried out the French Revolution. Factory workers especially pushed through the Revolutions of 1848. What’s further intriguing is that Lenin lays out a modern take on how to carry out a revolution. From the French resistance movement in WWII to the Chinese Communist Revolution, future revolutionaries follow Lenin’s guidelines. Furthermore, terrorist cells today are run on the exact same principles: include everyone you can who is willing, train them well, and respect authority, so as to keep stability and continuity. While Lenin may not be the first to try these tactics, it is his role as a mouthpiece to and for the future that makes his ideas so important.

 

Question for Commenters: Are there any other examples of those who may follow Lenin’s ideas on what it means to be a revolutionary?

[1] “Vladmir Lenin.” Wikipedia. Accessed March 24, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin.

[2] Ibid.

Vagrant Minors in Post War USSR

Posted on by

Fürst’s article concerning the orphans and those who were living on the streets aims to distinguish the USSR’s claim of trying to save the children, while also subtly hiding this problem and keeping it out of the public eye.

Fürst begins by declaring that the the original ideal of the Soviet Union was to save the children and relieve them of their horrible state.  Fürst claims that this position was most prominent during the 1930’s and the beginning of the war period.  However, the problem became more about solving the issue, rather than the issue itself near the war’s end.  Fürst states the Soviets wanted this “-as a phenomenon- […] to be liquidated” as subtly as possible, as the mere fact that children existed in this state was “an embarrassment to the government” (233).

Fürst first looks at the 1930’s and how children were vital to the USSR, as the new generation that will become productive and helpful members of society.  While education had significant undertones of communism and the Soviet party, students nonetheless excelled in academic and artistic endeavors.  This devotion to the next generation continued until the end of the Second World War.  ‘Saving’ the children was of utmost importance, and those who had their parents killed during the war were to be saved by other members of society.

At the end of the war, it was clear to the Soviet government that the children were going to be a hindrance to the populace.  With tens of thousands of children being orphaned, many resorted to street gangs and criminal activity, which mostly consisted of theft.  Fürst points out that a large number of these children had already been ‘saved’ once and were, in fact, trying to run away from the  orphanages, factory schools or foster places”, where the children had previously been residing.  The Soviet government became increasingly frustrated with its failed efforts, as well as the embarrassment of being unable to uphold one of its core ideologies: that children were one of the most vital part of the USSR.  Fürst describes the decline into ‘liquidation’ of the soviet police, which she equates to “animal hunts” (250).  These raids resulted in a substantial number of arrests made on homeless children, resulting in being sent to their parents, factory schools, and sometimes labor camps.

Do you agree with what the Soviet Union did, in terms or resorting to arresting these vagrant children?

Do you think the Soviet government exaggerated the embarrassment they felt with this ‘black mark’ on both a national and international scale?

What Makes a Revolution

Posted on by

In Lenin’s What Makes a Revolution, he discussed the differences between the economic and socialist view of a revolutionary. His friend, an economist, discussed revolutionaries in terms of trade unions and mutual aid societies. However, a true revolutionary, in the eyes of Lenin, is far more than a union member. Unions, while they may be illegal, still have certain standards they must uphold. In addition, unions have goals such as improving wages or working conditions, but they do not seek to change to system entirely. Revolutionaries, seek to create radical change, and must operate in secrecy. Revolutionaries are not simply men who are angered by current conditions. Rather, they are men trained in the art, so to speak, of revolutions. They have practice in spreading the revolutionary message, while keeping the organization itself as secretive as possible. Revolutionaries need the support of the working class, although revolutionary leaders are necessary to organize the outrage and make the revolution a success. Choosing specific leaders may seem undemocratic, although Lenin believed establishing a core group of leaders was needed to accomplish the goals of a revolution. A revolutionary may be involved in labor politics, but union organizers are not necessarily revolutionaries. Revolution, not factory work, must be a revolutionary’s full-time occupation. Training is necessary in establishing an effective revolution because outrage needs to be harnessed and exploited in order to affect change. A worker who protests the long working conditions will be appeased by a ten-hour workday. A true revolutionary, however, cannot be appeased by minor changes, and will continue to protest until the system has been dramatically changed.

 

Children of the War

Posted on by

The drive for the collective propagated the Soviet image during World War II. In his article “Between Salvation and Liquidation,” Furst notes that images of crying, bedraggled children could be found between posters of heroic soldiers and dutiful citizens. The presence of street children and orphans was not to be blamed solely on their parents; the Soviet Union, as a collective, was at fault. Therefore, it was the duty of the Motherland as whole to find a solution. Thousands of prospective foster-parents flocked to orphanages, eager to play their part in vanquishing Germany. But were the children really better off with unqualified, duty-bound parents? There is no doubt that the vast majority was physically better off in their new homes; begging is not a consistent food source. However, most of these children carried psychological scars unimaginable to those untouched by war. They deserved a second chance, a fresh start with loving parents who could care for them unconditionally. Clearly, by the number of reports of both runaways and foster-children with “nervousness,” their psychological states were not being well looked after. So did families feel obligated to adopt children? Did they reluctantly take in little girls and boys into homes where they played second fiddle to biological children? Did the Soviet state’s efforts to encourage adoption help or hurt the waifs and orphans?