In the early 1920’s Russia was recovering from the revolution and the following civil war. A famine was underway and the country was in disarray after the chaos of the last few years. In response the Soviet Union started enacting new policies to get the economy and the industrial section back on track. First they established the First Labor Army. This organization used men from the military to do labor in order to further the industrial sphere of Russia. The labor included coal, lumber, and others. It was enacted not only to further the industrial area of Russia but also to keep people alive. Russia was in the midst of a famine because of the disorder in the country. The workers in the factories were losing ground and a major act was necessary to turn things around. Also enacted was the New Economic Policy. In 1921 the Soviet Union changed the ways peasants were taxed. Instead of the grain requisitions, excess food was to be given to the government. As it became more common, this tax, in the form of supplies, transitioned into a monetary exchange. This policy was unusual for the Soviet government as usually exchange happened through the government rather than this people centered form. Both of these policies were criticized for their similarities to pre-revolution ideas. Many peasants believed that the labor army and the new form of taxation were too similar to serfdom. But these new policies fulfilled their purpose: rebuilding Russia.
Tag Archives: soviet union
Revolutionary Poetry
With the rise of literacy in Russia, literature became a more effective way to spread ideas throughout the people. Poetry stands out from the other forms here due to it’s rhythm. It is easier to remember stanzas of poetry than prose. This makes poetry a fantastic way to spread revolutionary ideas as well as the cost of the revolution.
Maksimilian Voloshin writes about how often progress is reached by some sort of sacrifice. In his poem, “Holy Russia” he describes the destruction that has come as a result of the revolution. “You yielded to passion’s beckoning call, And gave yourself to bandit and to thief, You burned your barns and fired your mansions, Pillaged your ancient house and home, And went your ways reviled and wretched, The handmaid of the humblest slave.” (( Voloshin, Holy Russia, http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1917-2/culture-and-revolution/culture-and-revolution-texts/holy-russia/ )) Voloshin tells of a Russia that has been torn apart by revolution, but that has the ability to make tremendous progress, something that would be positive to hear after years of brutal civil war.
Meanwhile, poets such as Kirillov and Gastev wrote on the glorious aspect of the revolution that came out of industrialization. In the poems, “Iron Messiah” and “We Grow Out of Iron” a new, magnificent future is made possible by the revolution, which was made possible by the machine. The machine allowed the proletariat to rise, and it will continue to allow for equality. Kirillov writes, “All of steel, unyielding and impetuous; He scatters sparks of rebellious thought,” this emphasizes the importance of technology in the minds of the revolutionaries. ((Kirillov, Iron Messiah, http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1917-2/culture-and-revolution/culture-and-revolution-texts/the-iron-messiah/ )) The machine represents power, equality, and progress, all which were goals of the revolution. This can be seen in the writing of Gastev, “I shall not tell a story or make a speech, I will only shout my iron word: “Victory shall be ours!”” ((Gastev, We Grow Out of Iron)) The use poetry to expand this message to the people emphasizes the importance of continuing to produce for the state using the technology that set them free.
These poets help to inspire the people that this suffering during the revolution is for a greater cause, but also that the very machines that made their lives harsh were the ones that liberated them. I think it is very interesting how the description and imagery of heavy machinery would fit right into a Western capitalist propaganda ad, but it can also be used to inspire the workers.
“The smoke of chimneys is the breath of Soviet Russia” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927–53)
American propaganda https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Propaganda by Rail
A Soviet propaganda train. [6]
In the early twentieth century the most effective means of traveling the country was by rail systems. Because of the rails already set in place throughout Russia the logical way to reach the people was to use the trains. The first of the trains to reach the isolated peasantry was know as “Lenin’s train.”[2] This train was made up of 15 cars and “decorated with paintings in bright colors, with forceful and unmistakably revolutionary inscriptions.”[3] It is important to note, that the officials onboard the train were members of branches of the “people’s Commissariat.”[4] These men would distribute masses of pamphlets and readings free of charge to the people, as well as answer questions and advise on issues concerning the population. This was a powerful tool for the Soviet government to use, as the population will feel heard, and important to the government. This in turn will promote less resistance to newer ideas and obedience. The feeling of solidarity between the government and the workers was to be fostered in this way.
The success of such trains in spreading soviet propaganda prompted the creation of three further trains, with different routs that would bring the word of the “Revolution” to the “most hidden nooks of Soviet Russia.”[5] These propaganda trains would be responsible for returning the wishes of the people to the government and create an environment where capitalist imperialism would be unable to return to the minds of the population.
[1] Hoffmann, “European Modernity and Soviet Socialism” in Hoffmann and Kotsonis, eds., Russian Modernity: Politics, Knowledge, Practices (NY: St. Martin’s, 2000), 245-260.
[2] Iakov Okunev, A New Way for Culture Propaganda. 1919
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Agit-train October Revolution / Vertov-Collection, Austrian Film Museum
1989
In the book, 1989, Mary Elise Sarotte used her book to look at the final days of the Soviet Union and the events that helped cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. She argued that the events in China did not “transfer to Europe”, the easing of tensions by the Americans first and then the Soviets, the East Germans demanding a change in “the status quo”, “self confidence increase”, and “television transforms reality at a crucial moment.” ((Mary Elise Sarotte. 1989: The Struggle To Create Post-Cold War Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. 16.))
One of the more crucial points and one of the more striking things to me, that Mary Sarotte made was the impact the media, particularly television, had on the end of the Soviet Union. During this section, using the example of the Berlin Wall, she wrote how the media scrambled to get to the wall to capture images of East and West Berliners tearing down the wall. She discussed how the media not only observed the events but they had also publicized and personalized the events going on. In particular, she noted two people in East Berlin, “reporter Georg Mascolo and his cameraman Rainer Marz of Spiegel-Tv” who not only took pictures but also filmed the events going on in the East. ((Mary Elise Sarotte. 1989: The Struggle To Create Post-Cold War Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. 43.)) During and after the events of the Berlin Wall, photos and footage of the events showed up in Western Media as well as in Eastern German media. This was significant to the downfall of the Soviet Union because it not only showed the west how ugly events were getting, but it also spurred on more Eastern Germans to take part in separating themselves from the Soviet Union.
Intervention of the United States and the Soviet Union
The documentary on the Afghanistan and Soviet Union war stated that the cause of the war was completely due to the United States and the Soviet Union. Throughout the documentary the enemy was revealed to be the Soviet Union, it was said that the cause of the war was due to their unnecessary intervention, but this opinion cannot fully be relied on because of its bias and because it is in the point of view of the United States.
The documentary also blames Afghanistan’s current problems with its own people solely on the United States and the Soviet Union; it blames the two countries for providing weapons that were used to fight against people of their own country. This brings up the question of, what if the United States hadn’t had intervened in this civil war? Would’ve conditions still have been the same or would it have decreased the amount of casualties during and after Soviet Union intervention? What would’ve happened if the U.S. hadn’t encouraged the rebels to continue their cause?
It also mentions that the Soviet Union tried very hard to conceal the events in Afghanistan from its people. The Soviet Union covered up the war by depicting soldiers building schools and not contributing to any type of combat. They also tried very hard to cover up the number of casualties and “invalids” that returned back from Afghanistan. Why would’ve the Soviet Union tried so hard to do this and why was it so important to cover up the truth?
Women and abortion in Soviet Society
In the article “Revolution and the Family”, Wendy Goldman discussed the ideas of abortion and women in the Soviet Union. She discussed how women in the Soviet Union, believed and even acted on using abortion in their lives. She argued that abortion was used more often with women who were in comfortable positions, such as being married, than women who were unmarried, jobless, or young. To prove her argument, she looked at influences in Soviet society that helped women in stable conditions make such decisions.
So why did Soviet women, the married and stable ones, decide to use abortion? Wendy Goldman noted that the use of abortion was evident from the mid 1920s until the prohibition of abortion in 1936. During this time, Goldman noted that abortion was a result of two important aspects. First, she noted that during the 1920s, there had been the problem of overcrowding of children in Soviet homes.((Wendy Goldman, “Revolution and the Family” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of the Totalitarian Era. 4th edition. Edited by Robert V Daniels. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994. 163)) This can be contributed to two factors. First, the devastating effects of World War I and the Russian Civil War left many children parentless, thus creating influxes of adopted children throughout homes. Second, Goldman pointed to the idea of Stalins policies that everyone works, both men and women. Thus, opportunities in the workforce and the military opened up for women, allowing them to leave the home. Wendy Goldman noted that the number of women entering the workforce between 1930 and 1931 “in heavy industry leaped suddenly from 22 percent to 42 percent.” (((Wendy Goldman, “Revolution and the Family” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of the Totalitarian Era. 4th edition. Edited by Robert V Daniels. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994. 164)) As a result of the rapid jump in the number of women entering the workforce, women who were in stable conditions tended to abort their children because because of the strain pregnancy and taking care of children were on the women.
Considering Wendy Goldmans piece on abortion, do you think that this was true among all ethnic groups? Or do you think it was only true among ethnic Russians?
Before the Cold War
After World War 2, the world is still on its head from a much longer war than expected. Along with the change, there is a change in boarders. The ”Iron Curtain” as Winston Churchill called it fell over part of Europe as the Soviet Union claimed more land and created a new boarder. This new force of the Sovient Union and communism put the world on edge, and not only the United States and Britian were worried.
Churchill and Truman were trying to rally democracy ruled countries together with their speeches. Churchill told the United States how much power they had now that the war was over and how they needed to watch the Soviet Union, unlike they had with Germany. Truman’s doctorine was explaining why the United Nations needed to help Greece and Turkey. They were trying to build up resistance to the Soviet Union so it couldn’t expand beyond what it already had.
As for Stalin and Brezhnev, they explained the importance of communism. Stalin compared Churchill’s view on English speaking countries to that of Hitler’s view on German speaking nations. He wanted to inspire the people of his nation, make them believe the Soviet Union would be able to take out Britian and the United States just as they did with Germany in World War 2. Brezhnev’s Doctrine explained how important it was for communist countries to support each other. With internal problems, communism wouldn’t be able to spread.
These documents show the two sides of the Cold War starting. Both feel like they need to help the smaller countries under their control and preach to them that they are the strongest nation in the world. Both know they the power of the other after World War 2, making them hesitant to take action during the Cold War
Peace, Love, and Rock and Roll in the USSR
In the discussion of Raleigh’s chapters exploring the Sputnik Generation in the USSR, the notion that during the 1950s and 1960s Soviet society shared many similarities to that of the United States in their gender relations and in their restrictive childhoods. William Risch’s article, “Soviet ‘Flower Children.’ Hippies and the Youth Counter-culture in 1970s L’viv,” continues to examine the cultural similarities between the two warring nations. More particularly, Risch seeks to address how the hippies in the Soviet Union affected the counter-culture that emerged among the generation born after the end of World War II (page 565).
The three previous readings in addition to Risch’s article all focus on the idea of the developing Soviet childhood in a post-war and post-Stalin Soviet Union. Margaret Peacock discussed the differences between the Communist Party’s expectations for children and the actual behaviors of children in the post-war society by focusing on the 1957 Moscow World Youth Festival. The Party still excepted the children to act in a discipline manner and obey their elders, something the interviewees in Raleigh’s article illustrated. However, during the festival many Soviet children disregarded these perceived notions of their behavior and acted in non-Party sanctioned ways (i.e. clubbing, drinking excessively). This juxtaposition between expectation and reality illustrates the restricted freedom all Soviet youths experienced in the 1950s and 1960s.
As Risch’s article indicates, the hippies within the Soviet Union (and perhaps America, as well) constituted a powerful minority amongst the children of their generation. Hippies in the Soviet Union, especially L’viv, experienced alienation due to their counter-cultural views (page 572). This along with the diverging notions of child behavior between the Party expectations and reality make it difficult to identify one cohesive idea of a Soviet Childhood in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. However, I believe it could be argued that the majority of children growing up in a post-war Soviet society, particularly those of families associated with the Party such as Natalia P., experienced the “typical” Soviet childhood of restricted freedom.
Sputnik Generation
In his two articles, Donald Raleigh interviewed two people, Natalia P and Victorovich Ivanov, who were from the city of Sarastov, in the Oblast region of Russia. Both of whom grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, recalled memories of their childhood, families, events, and learning experiences during the early years of their lives. Natalia’s interview was particularly striking to me.
One of the more striking points that Natalia P. made in her interview involved her discussion of her father. Growing up in the mid fifties, she discussed the experience she had with her family. She mentioned that despite some of the needs of the family, her father, as a university professor, did not care for the things he spent his money on. Although he spent his money on educating her, Natalia stated that despite the ties his father had with other prominent people and the fact that he could get certain things from those people, he “never regretted spending money on such things, on books, on education, on tutors, on music, on English lessons….yet nothing that was connected with living conditions interested him.” ((Donald Raleigh, “Russia’s Sputnik Generation: Soviet Baby Boomers talk about their lives” Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 103)) Although she did not talk about this, this belief might suggest to the fact that her father was influenced by Stalins time in power. During the Stalin era, people had to deal with having very little, particularly during the famines. In addition, if you had too much stuff, you could have been accused of being a Kulak and be sent off to a Gulag for that. For Natalia, it could be that her father was very much influenced by the painful time period that he grew up in. One of the most important aspects that Natalia mentioned was that despite the lack of materials regarding living conditions, she was still provided education materials. During Stalins time and throughout the 1950s, the state had recognized that the children were the future of the party. In order to have them become good Soviet citizens, the children had to be given a proper education so that they could push the state forward. As a result of Natalias mothers and fathers likely experience under Stalin, Natalia was given the same kind of upbringing by stating that their upbringing was passed down to her. ((Donald Raleigh, “Russia’s Sputnik Generation: Soviet Baby Boomers talk about their lives” Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 90)) This seems to suggest that although the Stalin era had ended, the memory and scaring of it for some Soviet citizens may very well have lasted well into the 1950s.
Do you think it was common to see people upbringing their children the same way Natalias father did? If so, did the state try to make the rules clearer for its populous so that they could overcome the hard times of the Stalin era?
Sputnik Generation: Class and International Relations
What struck me most about the Russia’s Sputnik Generation reading, was the manner in which both interviewees approached class distinctions at their childhood school. Natalia P. seemed almost acutely aware of the types of people her school in Saratov attracted: primarily children of the intelligentsia. Gennadii Viktorovich Ivanov, on the other hand, seemed not to have placed much stock in the types of students at School 42, brushing off the question by merely stating that it wasn’t of interest to children back then.
It seems, however, that both Natalia and Gennadii agree that the school was filled primarily by the children of intelligentsia and skilled labor, not by the children of party officials or bureaucrats.
This could, perhaps, be a manifestation of Gennadii’s police background–he might not have wanted to divulge such information, or may have thought it an inappropriate question for an American to ask. Or, perhaps, Natalia P. just felt more sensitive during her adolescence, and noticed such trends, which Gennadii did not.
Beyond this, Gennadii’s views, specifically on the West, seem to echo the sentiment and rhetoric, which the criminal police espoused during the Soviet Union. Specifically, he views the West as not caring about Russian matters. He does, however, make the distinction that the average American probably doesn’t take notice of the events in Russia. Are his views typical of his generation?