Category Archives: HIST254-Archive

Commissars: Senior Leaders

Posted on by

Dmitry Furmanov was a Russian writer who would become a commissar for the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War.  A commissar was a position in the Bolshevik movement that encompassed multiple appendant bodies of representation (military, political, etc) but all represented the same organization: Communist idealism.  It was the job of the commissariat to ensure that the party interests were being realized on day to day operations in all of their respective fields of work.  For example, a commissar attached to a Bolshevik military battalion had the duty and obligation of working not only to recruit more to the cause, but also to ensure that the communist vision is realized by executing and planning phases of actions against the enemy.  Whereas a commissar that represents the people would focus more on the morale and unity of the people on the home front.  These individuals represented the senior leadership of the Bolsheviks and ultimately had a say over the policy, management, and development of the communist movement.

Furmanov’s particular commissar job led him to envelop a novel about arguably the most renown and famous hero of the civil war: Vasily Chapeav.  Chapeav was a soldier of the Bolsheviks who was elected by his fellow soldiers to command their unit against the White Army.  Later in the Civil War, Chapeav demonstrated himself as a confident and competent leader up until his last battle in which he and his unit were ambushed by White Forces.  In his death, Chapeav exemplified the veracious spirit of the Bolshevik effort and went down in history as a hero of the Civil War and was immortalized throughout the future soviet military existence.

Mass Culture in Soviet Russia

Posted on by

Art and culture seems to have been parallel with the greatest of the political philosophy Russia was seeing at the time. Russia had already begun to emerge a little bit on the international stage, but not enough. These artists wanted to explode this emergence and make the Russian art known throughout the world. This puts an emphasis on each individual in their part of the whole. Revolutionaries wanted to remake the world and believed that they could this new world into one in which things are unified. The poems “We Grow out of Iron”, “The War of Kings”, “The Iron Messiah”, and “We” all abound with metal imagery. This can be interpreted as symbolic of the development (or creation) of the new communist man. The symbolism of “Soviet metal” explores both the political and artistic revolutions that were taking place, as well as their common sentiment and objective of unification. The imagery of metal gives the reader a sense of how much the mass industrialization taking place at the time influenced the attitude of hope and power felt by both artistic and political revolutionaries. The workers were the revolutionaries; they were hardened (or “steeled”) to the heavy metal and machinery of their trades, and unified via this harsh labor. Aleksei Gastev in fact, author of “We Grow Out of Iron”, worked in Russian and European factories and his experiences as a laborer steered him toward Marxism. Revolution for Gastev endeavored to enable workers by sanctioning them power over day-to-day work related practices. Gastev was also involved in the efforts of the Petersburg Union of Metal Workers. His poetry powerfully exults in industrialization; declaring it an era of an innovative form of man, qualified by the total modernization of his routine existence as a laborer.

A Russia of Iron & Gastev

Posted on by

Gastev’s poem “We Grow out of Iron” is a short, but powerful poem about the rise of a new Russia, one made of iron.  Utilizing iron as a motif, Gastev evokes that the new Russia is unlike anything in its history.

Iron has long been a symbol of strength, power, and industry in a variety of art forms and Gastev utilizes all three of these themes to create an image of the new Soviet Union.  Beginning with the aspect of strength, Gastev incorporates height, writing about beams that rise “to a height of seventy feet” (Gastev).  No other building material in use at the time could achieve the same heights that iron can.  Gastev uses this fact to show how the Soviet Union is rising anything that was in place before it, which could only be built from brick, wood, or stone.

Gastev also uses iron to show the sheer power that only metal can provide.  Gastev’s narrator declares that he is “growing shoulders of steel and arms immeasurably strong” (Gastev).  Gastev uses this to evoke the newly found strength of the Soviet Union and its unbreakable will to continue to progress.

Gastev, most importantly, uses iron as a symbol for industry in the Soviet Union.  No longer is Russia an agricultural state, but is now a nation of factories, furnaces, and forges. With constant references to metal architecture, the Soviet Union is not a country of small wooden huts, but of massive iron mills.

Revolutionary Works: Words that stir the populous’ blood

Posted on by

Wherever there is revolution, there are artists and intellectuals working behind the scenes to rouse the people into action. In colonial America, it was “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine and “Concord Hymn” by Emerson. In revolutionary Russia, Dmitry Furmanov was responsible for creating the call to action in his novel “Chapaev.” Typical of the World War I era, it glorifies battle and celebrates the power of youth. Furmanov depicts “courageous” young men “indissolubly linked together,” motivating Russia’s youth to respond to a higher calling ((Dmitry Furmanov, Chapev, (1923)). Chapaev is unique in Russia’s class-based society as it calls to everyone; the misfits, the poor, the hungry, the handsome, and the well-to-do are all welcome under Chapeau’s watchful eye. Furmanov creates a romanticized story where even the peasants can find food and happiness – appealing to the many who had nothing under the current regime and inspiring even more to rise up and fight.
Similarly, the poem “We Grow Out of Iron,” by Aleksei Gastev, also uses powerful language and wording to create images of the weak becoming powerful and overthrowing their oppressors. Gastev, himself a factory worker, manipulates the vision of the poem by choosing a relatively low level of syntax, while still planting the idea of revolution in a manner that relates to the audience. His word choice, particularly in the fourteenth line, when he says “I too am growing shoulders of steel and arms immeasurably strong,” empowers the people ((Aleksel Gastev, We Grow Out or Iron, (1914)). “I too” has a twofold meaning – not only is he participating in the revolution, just like the commoners, the sailors, and the peasants, but he is struggling, yet overcoming, setting the expectation that others will too. Authors like Furmanov and Gastev were the driving force behind the revolution – not the revolution of the intellectuals, who tended to plan without action, but the revolution of the people, who stirred at the calling of freedom and the end of tyranny.

Blood and Iron: Gastev’s Socialist Message

Posted on by

Aleksei Gastev takes values of strength and perseverance to new heights with his factory-oriented socialist poem, We Grow Out of Iron.” A laborer himself, Gastev knew full well the hardships found on the factory floor, and took advantage of his experiences to maximize the relatability of his poetic works. Drawing on the iron aesthetic of the workspace, Gastev’s verses support the rhythm of the piece exactly as the cross-beams he references support the factory. Between the beam’s demands for greater strength and the pouring iron blood of the workers, Gastev makes it clear that there is no strength without sacrifice.

In the latter half of the poem, the narrator of the work transcends mortal bounds, becoming one of the mighty beams supporting the factory and, through it, the industriousness of the Russian people.

The metaphor, while not particularly subtle, serves well to represent the blunt strength with which many viewed the socialist movement. Despite the difficulties, both social and economic, faced by Russia in the early twentieth century the industry workers were a powerful force for change once organized. The obvious fervor Gastev holds for his cause makes his ultimate death in Stalin’s labor camps all the more ironic.

We Grow Out of Iron Speaks to the Masses

Posted on by

Gastev, a factory worker and revolutionist becomes speaker of the growing strength of the revolutionists’ movement through literary symbolism. The tone is set in a metal factory exposing the recent modernization within Russia with the development of the factory worker and the acquisition of new found comradeship groups and knowledge concepts. The changes that industrialization brings to these city workers are graphically emphasized by the worker turning into half iron with fresh iron blood pouring into their veins morphing into half human this worker slowly transitioning from normal man into a mythical iron giant is a depiction of the pervasion and growing strength of revolutionary thoughts. Concluding with the words, “Victory shall be ours!” ((Aleksel Gastev, We Grow Out or Iron, (1914)))

This poem is a magnificent representation of the revolution movement that initially established within the cities among factory workers and the working class men. These men grew in strength by physical numbers joining the movement.  Times spent reading helped to force and accelerate the explosion of workers who woke up and realized that they could evoke change by their actions. Today this poem compared to a presidential candidate’s campaign ad, which encourages support by utopian promises is one to bolster action from the people. While history proves that the initial desire evoked within Gastevs words did not prove true, it still shows the power that speech can have on the masses.

 

“We Grow Out of Iron” and the Socialist Message

Posted on by

In the poem “We Grow Out of Iron,” Aleksei Gastev preached for socialist revolution rooted and cultivated in Russian factories. Gastev targeted the audience of factory workers in 1918 by relating the strength of the revolutionary cause to steel beams that support the factory. The steel represents in many ways the relationship between the workers and the revolution. The magnitude and strength of the steel factory structure Gastev described in the poem translated to his vision of some sort of labor revolution. His poem also represented an effort to give context of the socialist movement by tailoring his message to specific social class of people by relating the revolutionary message to their lifestyle.

But, Gastev’s message seems hazy because of some of his word choices. Throughout the poem, he narrates with the first person singular “I” rather than “we.” This implies to the reader an individual or singular effort. Even though factory workers at the time could probably resonate with the poem’s message regardless the phrasing, it is still noticeable. But, the first person “I” could of contradicted the principle of socialism to some, which is an emphasis on the mission and identity of a collective group of people rather than the individual. Gastev concluded his poem with the line “victory shall be ours!”[1] The switch from “I” to “we” represents a connection between the individual and the whole. Why was the poem phrased in the “I” person if it was intending to promote socialism? Were the efforts to make socialism accessible and achievable for Russian revolutionaries tarnishing the goal of Marx’s vision of socialism?

[1] Aleksei Gastev, “We Grow Out of Iron,” (1918).

Foreign Entities

Posted on by

In his article, Nicholas II said that there was, “a great struggle against a foreign enemy who has been endeavouring for three years to enslave our country.” But what foreign enemy was he talking about? What foreign enemies could he possible have seen meddling in Russian affairs? My theory is that by using the word “foreign”, he was referring to the new alien presences that sought to influence Russia from the inside. This could easily include any of the political parties that were rising up (and being suppressed) within Russia at the time.

Nicholas II and Abdication

Posted on by

Change!  In the statements made on March 15, 1917, Nicholas II realized that the pressures from the people of Russia had reached a boiling point.  He felt that he had one option, to abdicate the thrown and leave it to his brother.  He stated “We have recognized that it is for the good of the country that we should abdicate the Crown of the Russian State and lay down the Supreme Power.  Not wishing to separate ourselves from our beloved son, we bequeath our heritage to our brother, the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich…” ((Nicholas II abdication speech, March 15, 1917)).  Nicholas II’s statement about abdicating the thrown were important for several reasons.  First, he recognized the fact that people knew he could not keep the Russian state floating.  Years before his abdication, he had lead Russia into one debacle after another.  Internationally, he had Russia’s backwardness exposed when Russia was humiliated in the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-1905.  Years later, Russia was exposed again with culminating defeats in World War I.  Domestically, he failed to solve the food shortages and failed to respond to calls for reforms from the Russian people.  Second, he placed more emphasis on the Russian state keeping a Tsardom than listening to the demands of the Russian people.   Nicholas II believed that the only change the Russian state needed to make was to have a different leader in charge.  However, the decision to transfer power to his brother only added fuel to the coming revolution, along with his past history of refusing to make reforms for the benefit of the Russian people.  Had he really cared about the Russian people, he would have created reforms which would have allowed for the people to have a say in decision making.  Do you think there was a point of no return for Nicholas II?  And if so, when did he cross that point in which he, and the idea of Tsardom were doomed?  Or was Nicholas II doomed as a result of previous Tsars?

Abdication and The Provisional Government

Posted on by

By 1917, the Russian war effort was categorized as a disaster.  Food shortages, terrible army living conditions, and trouble at home away from the front left the people of Russia desperately searching for a scapegoat.  The citizens found the perfect scapegoat in their Tsar Nikolai II. Once the Russian army began to crumble under German forces, Tsar Nikolai II was named commander in chief of the army, and began The Great Retreat. As Russian morale dissipated, Tsar Nikolai II stepped down and named his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail, the new Tsar.  In the article, “The Abdication of Nikolai II”, the explanation of his abdication was filled with glorified speech about their powerful nation and it’s heroic victory. The people of Russia were told it was time to “abdicate the Crown of the Russian state and lay down the Supreme Power.”  Unfortunately rather than take on a new form of government, a second Tsar, the brother of the former, was placed in power. With an “elected” legislative body, the Duma, at his side, there was an appearance of representation of the people. The Abdication was a call upon the nation to govern themselves through the representatives in the Duma. The people of Russia did not have as much of a say in the operations of their country as they believed.  The Tsar himself selected the representatives. The Duma was given a set of eight principles to follow, ranging from amnesty to military rights.  The closing sentence of “The First Provisional Government” is a strange ending to a declaration of trust, “[The Duma] has no intention whatsoever of taking advantage of the military situation to delay in any way the carrying through of the reforms and the measures outlined above.”  While the Duma declares it has no intention of halting the measures to replace the Tsar, it is clear that they are willing and able to use the military for whatever is necessary.  While setting up the Duma and filling it with representatives gave the people of Russia a sense of control, the elected body was a facade for the Tsar to hide behind.  By selecting a preferred cabinet, did the Tsar take away power from the population?