Category Archives: HIST234-Archive

Urban development as a reflection of culture and politics

Posted on by

I found the reviewer’s last sentence, recommending the three books for those interested in issues of memory, history, and urban planning very interesting. Urban planning reflects both the values and dynamism of a society. Paris, for instance, along with many other European cities, remains fixated on the past; try building a skyscraper on the Champs-Élysées if you want a challenge. Other cities, like New York, promote their ostensibly forward-looking nature with hyper-modern architectural styles and a constant flow of major construction projects.

I believe cities should recognize the importance of change with regard to practical matters, including increasing populations, inadequate public services, and important cultural changes (e.g the dissolution of an old, popularly discredited order). I contend that, with urban planning as with history in general, we must not regret the past but question the future we choose.  Regarding this, I found the debate over Sevastopol particularly interesting, considering the conflict between “accommodation and agitation” and Moscow’s attempt to mythologize the city without paying attention to the actual needs of its citizens. It would appear that overconfidence in an assured victory posed as grave a danger to the Soviet Union as it did to Catholicism and Liberalism in the West. For all of his flaws, at least Chairman Mao understood that only revolutions within the revolution, fed by the blood and ingenuity of each successive generation, could keep the movement effective and relevant.

The Role of Tobacco in One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

Posted on by

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich places an inordinate amount of emphasis on the role of tobacco in the Gulag, a luxury one normal does not consider readily accessible to convicts stuck in the middle of Siberia. The main character, Ivan Denisovich Shukhov exemplifies the obsession with this drug, even to the point that he takes a loan out for it. After an unusually large portion for lunch, Shukhov cites an insatiable craving for it, a craving which is odd seeing how this man was previously just worrying about whether or not he would get extra food.

Tobacco influences how Shukhov spends his day from the minute he rises to the time he goes to bed. Shukhov second-guesses going to the infirmary in order to possibly secure some tobacco even with his feverish pains and aches. After he fails to secure more tobacco, he manages to beg Tsezar for his cigarette butt, which he then proceeds to smoke until it burns his lips. After his loaner cigarette, Shukhov then waits in line for Tsezar in an attempt to get more tobacco or even any sort of reward for his assistance, before finally going to see his tobacco dealer, where he pays CASH for two small glasses of it. Because cash was not a common commodity in the camps, this signifies just how desperate for tobacco Shukhov is. This luxury, more than food or sleep, gives him the motivation to survive.

Because of the camp conditions, particularly in regards to food and staying warm, it is interesting to see how much emphasis Shukhov places on securing tobacco, rather than trading it to others for more food or other materials that could improve his quality of life. While there are limited goods Shukhov could have due to regulations, it seems a little ridiculous that he emphasis this good so heavily rather than finding better ways to stay warm or items such as firewood to help with his living conditions.

What Makes a Good Soviet?

Posted on by

What makes one a good Soviet? Being faithful to Stalin? Being faithful to Marx? In his novella One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Alexander Solzhenitsyn examines these questions. Solzhenitsyn implies throughout his novella that a good Soviet is faithful to Marx and the ideals of communism, not the dictatorship that Stalin created.

Among the prisoners in the camp, there is a sense of camaraderie. For example, Fetiukov saves Shukhov’s breakfast for him when he is late (p.15). Even though they are not allowed to be called “comrade,” they are each other’s comrades, and seem to embody the ideals of communism more so than the guards and other authorities. Solzhenitsyn illustrates this on page 34 when Buinosky says to the guards, “You’re not behaving like Soviet people, you’re not behaving like communists.”

Do the prisoners share comradeship because they share a common enemy and/or common struggles in life? Or did Solzhenitsyn include this element because he was influenced by the Soviet system? I think the latter is unlikely. Solzhenitsyn spent time in a Soviet prison camp, and had his citizenship revoked and was deported in 1974, so it seems doubtful that he would be concerned with Soviet ideals.

So, what makes a good Soviet? Was Stalin a good Soviet? Are the guards good Soviets? Are the prisoners? Why?

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

Posted on by

Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s novella One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich describes the working and living conditions of a Russian labor camp by examining the lives of its prisoners.  All of these men ended up in the camp by being deemed enemies of the state, and the purpose of the camp is to reteach them how to be productive members of the Communist party.  However, some of the values that are prominent in the camp ironically go against those of Communism.  The prisoners are viewed as below so-called “comrades” in the outside world to the point that they are dehumanized.  There is also a distinct hierarchical structure within the camp, which is emphasized when Solzhenitsyn describes how Shukhov refuses to take certain jobs because “there were others lower than him” (15).  The niceties that are enjoyed by the prison staff come at the expense of the labor of the convicts, who are not allowed to use the facilities which they have built (38).   Bribery through gifts of extra rations is also a common method of getting out of having to undertaking work projects with poorer conditions.  Overall, the idea of all citizens being equal is not enforced within the camp, and the only value it shares with the idealistic view of Communism is the importance of hard work.  Does the hypocrisy of the camp accurately portray the hypocrisy of the Soviet government at the time in which the novella takes place?

Stalin’s Accusations of Subversion

Posted on by

Stalin’s attempts to remove any political factions that were pitted against him provide an iconic example of a totalitarian rise to power.  These ambitions are summarized definitively in “Purges,” a document published in 1935.  In this passage, Stalin’s prose reveals his feelings that the extant companions of Lenin in the Soviet Union constituted a threat to his own political prowess and thus needed to be eliminated by whatever means necessary to decimate their power and credibility with the general public.

Stalin accused figures such as Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Trotsky of “insincerity and duplicity” in their statements of allegiance to the state and claimed that they were responsible for numerous acts of subversion, most significantly “a villainous plot against the life of S.M. Kirov. (Stalin)  The more poignant purpose of these accusations was to portray these Old Bolsheviks as enemies of the “common cause.” (Stalin)  By extension, these opponents of Stalinism became the collective enemy of the public.  Thus, by publishing “Purges,” Stalin attempted to simultaneously denounce the likes of the Old Bolsheviks and create a unifying “us against them” mentality amongst the Russian population.  The administrative technique of “unification against a common enemy” is pervasive throughout history and is evident in countless examples of leadership beyond the political sphere.   “Purges,” however, is one of the most archetypal instances of the usage of this tool.

Do you think that Stalin’s accusations of “insincerity and duplicity” against the Old Bolsheviks were a calculated act of propaganda or simply the product of paranoia? (Stalin)

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

Posted on by

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is a compelling account of life in the Russian gulag system, based on Solzhenitsyn’s experiences. It deals with the various trials of living in labour camp, and strikingly presents the idea of the relativity of good fortune. A perfect example is the apparent good fortune of Ivan, because he sleeps in the barracks instead of the cells (165). However, the alternative example that I wish to focus on, is Solzhenitsyn’s  commentary on the Russian Orthodox Church. He describes Alyosha, a fellow prisoner who has been imprisoned for his Baptist beliefs. He is described as a naive prisoner, who does not understand the methods for survival within the camp. However, in one exchange between Ivan and Alyosha, the latter talks about the betrayal of the Orthodox Church. He implies that the Orthodox Church’s attempts to work within the communist system is a sin, and that those men who are imprisoned are more righteous in the eyes of the Lord (162-3). This opinion that prison is a method of penance raises a question pertaining to the legality and authority of the Orthodox Church. While the Church collaborated with the government to ensure it’s survival, what was the sentiment of the common man? Did the everyday Orthodox priest loyally follow the Church’s orders, or were they defiant like Alyosha and the other sects of Christianity?

Industrialization of the Country

Posted on by

This article written by Joseph Stalin in 1928 is a examination of Soviet economic development, and the issues it faced in comparison to other western powers. Stalin wanted to combine the “backward” economy of the peasants with a “large scale and united socialist industry”. Stalin was aware of how far behind Russia was in relation to Germany, France and other large western countries, in regards to the technological advances in each country. Stalin believed that a combination of the Soviet system and Soviet power with advanced technology would trump any nation.

The beginning of the article struck me in particular. In this section Stalin makes a direct comparison of Russia and Germany. He makes this relation in a rather competitive nature, and he writes that the only reason for Russia’s inability to produce like Germany is the head start Germany got in creating a industrial economy. It is obvious to all that Russia and Germany engaged in war only 13 years later. This section could be read as a direct challenge to Germany and an example of the tensions that existed between the two lands. There was another aspect that I thought of however. That is the technological agreements between the two before the war. Could this article have been an acceptance of Germany’s ability in this field and a plea for help? Or was it a combination of grudging respect and a deep desire to achieve success? I think this is a section that can be viewed from a few different historical angles, coming from Stalin himself the rhetoric feels that much more meaningful.

Dizzy with Success

Posted on by

In “Dizzy with Success” (1930) Stalin discusses the need to temper growing enthusiasm in the socialist state and the socialist system. It is interesting to note that this was necessary. In America, students are still raised on ideas born of the Cold War: communism is evil; the people are never happy under communism. This piece contradicts these foundational American ideas.
In the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Soviet citizens were ecstatic in the changes to their economy. The economy was growing at an unbelievable rate and the people were glad to see their living conditions quickly improving. This happiness went hand-in-hand with an eagerness to continue. Many people wanted to help push the economy even further. It was this idea that Stalin cautions against in this piece. He did not want the people to become so “dizzy with success” that they forgot themselves, their country’s position in the world, or the power of its enemies. He warns that many, once they taste the first fruits of success, want to capture the feeling. Many would do anything to protect their new advances, but they also become careless–they believe that since they have already succeeded, the success will continue. With this perspective, they continue to push themselves, but not to the same level and not with the same need to strive beyond the success of others.
This piece was written in 1930 when collectivization was in its first few years. Stalin needed to prove that his plans for the economy were more profitable than those first begun under Lenin. Platanov’s The Foundation Pit highlighted the difficulties associated with collectivization and its counterpart, dekulakization. On what level was “dizzy with success” a piece of propaganda? Were the statistics from the program truly reflective of the changes in the economy? Stalin encouraged Stakanovites to work past their quotas to achieve more for the state. Why did this same principle not apply to collective farming?

Stalin’s New Collectivation

Posted on by

In Joseph Stalin’s Industrialization of the Country, 1928, the main argument of the article is to push forward the ideology of communism through the agrarian ways of the Soviet 1920s. It commonly sites the failures of capitalism to fairly protect the farmers, as well as the previous Tsarist government to modernize in technology and political rule over the 1920s and 1930s. In Stalin’s piece he goes over the failure of the new agricultural policy in an attempt to reform it within collectivization and the new Soviet style. Beyond that it continues to disregard and downplay capitalism as a failing technique and further builds our new historiographic world.

In his work one sentence I found most interesting was one on changing social classes’ and the economy.

“If that were the case, the capitalist encirclement could not be so serious a danger as it is now, the question of the economic independence of our country would naturally recede into the background, we could integrate ourselves into the system of more developed proletarian states, we could receive from them machines for making our industry and agriculture more productive, supplying them in turn with raw materials and foodstuffs, and we could, consequently, expand our industry at a slower rate.”

In this piece I see a respect for all industries but the capitalist groups even in Russia continually achieve and receive more wealth and time than the non capitalist groups. If natural integration between social groups were possible during the 1930s and 40s I believe that not only would the Cold War would have been less active, but also that the action between East and West forces would have been naturally more calm.

However after the destruction caused by the collectivization done by Stalin in this work is very telling about the worth of human life to Soviet leadership. The idea of backwardness of the economy takes a seat in order for the state to push for further self independence. I have to ask how true the actors of the time, specific to districts or towns would readily agree to these comments. As well as how at the same time how much they could agree that the local populace would be to them as well.

 

 

Dizzy with Success

Posted on by

In the late 1920s the Soviet government began to collectivize agriculture within the country. In this document Stalin boasts about the rapid success of this newly implemented program in regards to agricultural output. Since the program has had such a swift and unexpected success, Stalin attempts to dissuade the public from being lured into feeling of contentment and complacency. He wishes to promote further advancement of the the country’s agricultural potential in order to obtain the “full victory of socialism.”

Although the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union did succeed in several regards, it was a highly controversial program as well. Stalin wrote that “even our enemies are forced to admit that the successes are substantial,” in order to make opponents of the policy reevaluate their criticisms. He needed to defend the collectivization program because it was met by heavy opposition from propertied individuals who would be required to forfeit their lands. Many peasants  knew that the state would benefit from having large quantities of cheap grain continually available, but these same peasants also realized that this same policy would have a negative impact on them as individuals because they would be forced to sell their grain at cheap, state dictated prices.

Did the impressive immediate results of collectivization effectively dissuade many of the programs critics? Or did most of them realize that it was merely a short run phenomena that would be difficult to expand and sustain?