Documents and Commentary

The historical pre-requisites, essence and the importance of the resolution of the Central Committee of AUCP(b) ‘On the Restructuring of Literary Artistic Organisations’ is convincingly portrayed in our scientific literature. Contemporary authors refer to this document repeatedly. It is necessary only to emphasize once again, that the restructuring of the literary and artistic organisations was a product of the internal demands of the Soviet literary movement and artistic creativity and corresponded fully with the most genuine interests of the widest possible segment of the Soviet artistic intelligentsia. Thus the insinuations of our enemies, various sovietologists and revisionists, that the unification of Soviet writers was undertaken by the Party allegedly ‘only with the purpose to control’ literary circles (G. Struve) has nothing to do with reality. Starting from the second half of the twenties the efforts to unite all the Soviet writers under one platform and to overcome the splintering into disparate groups became stronger and stronger.

Gorky spoke out emphatically against the division of Soviet writers into disparate groups. On 13th July 1930, he wrote to M. Chumandrinu, ‘it is very depressing to be a witness to this endless petty scholastic polemics by everyone against everyone, and I feel that the time chosen for such a futile exercise is most unfortunate - a time, when social revolution is being transformed into a socialist revolution and the unity of all forces is the need of the hour’. It is clear that deep dissatisfaction with RAPP intensified within the organisation itself and amongst the members of the association and such writers as Serafimovich, Gladkov, Panferov, who strongly opposed the RAPP administration in literature.

It is understandable why the resolution of the Central Committee of AUCP(b) on the ‘Restructuring of Literary Artistic Organisations’ was greeted by Soviet writers with great satisfaction and optimism. Leonid Leonov said, "It is necessary to understand categorically that the restructuring of all literary organizations speaks not only of liquidation of RAPP but restructuring of all literary organisations...The basis of the resolution of CC AUCP is the restructuring at the ground level that will lead to the creation of a great literature worthy of the great endeavour undertaken by the people of the country’.

(‘Literaturnaya Gazeta’, 5th May 1932)

The resolution of the Central Committee of AUCP(b) on the Restructuring of Literary Artistic Organisations, not only brought an end to the division of Soviet writers into various groups, but also facilitated their unity in a single Union of Soviet Writers on the basis of a general creative platform of Socialist Realism.

The Central Committee declares that, during the past years, on the basis of the success of socialist construction, literature and art has achieved great success both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Some years ago when there was a lot of alien influence on literature, mainly during the first years of NEP and the cadre of proletarian literature was still weak, the party provided comprehensive support in establishing and strengthening specific proletarian organisations in the fields of literature and art with the aim of strengthening the position of the proletarian writers and artists.

At present, when the cadres of proletarian literature and art have been already strengthened and new writers and activists have emerged from the factories and kolkhozes, the settings of several literary organisations (BOAPP, RAPP, RAMP and others) have become too narrow for encompassing this momentous artistic creativity. Such a situation poses a danger that these organisations, instead of serving as means of socialist construction, would become an instrument for cultivating groupism, a diversion from the political tasks of the present times as well as alienation from significant groups of writers and artists sympathetic towards socialist realism.

Hence, the need to restructure literary-artistic organisations and to expand its base and work.

The CC AUCP(b) thus declares:

‘Party Construction’, 1932, No. 9, Pg. 62.

It is a well-known fact that Socialist Realism is under severe attack from various bourgeois sovietologists and revisionists. They keep repeating the worn out propaganda myth: ‘Socialist realism has been forced upon Soviet literature from above as a directive.’ However, this myth dissipates quickly in the face of reality.

First of all it is evident, that one cannot equate the existence and development of the literary method of Soviet art and literature with the evolution of the term Socialist Realism and judge it in isolation from the real history of Soviet and world literature and art that was inspired by the ideas of socialism and brought about by the upheavals of the XIX and, particularly, the XX centuries. In other words, Socialist Realism reflects and generalises the characteristics of Soviet and world art that are related to the workers’ movement and ideas of scientific socialism.

With the birth and evolution of socialist realist art, a theoretical understanding of its features was also gradually created. Many Soviet writers and critics attempted to give a definition which would reflect the most significant features and innovative nature of Soviet literature and art. The inquiry was based on the aesthetical views of K. Marx. F. Engels and V.I. Lenin and the experience and thoughts on literature and arts of A.V. Lunacharsky and M. Gorky. Some of these definitions (‘romantic realism’, ‘heroic realism’ and ‘revolutionary realism’ etc.) to a certain extent reflected real features of Soviet literature and art and led us to an idea that corresponded to its essence - the idea of ‘socialist realism’.

The term Socialist Realism emerged in the spring of 1932 in connection with the creation of the Union of Soviet Writers. Unification of all Soviet writers in one unit was related to its ideological and creative wholeness. The question regarding the creative platform of the amalgamated Union of Soviet Writers, about the literary method of Soviet literature and art, undoubtedly, was a topic of discussions at the meeting of writers with Gorky and Serafimovich, the meetings of the Central Committee of the Party and many other discussions. The discussions were very animated, more so as some of the leaders of RAPP, even after the resolution of the CC AUCP ‘On Restructuring of Literary and Artistic Organisations’ dated 23 April 1932, continued to support and defend the slogan for ‘dialectical-materialistic method in art and literature’.

Hence came the term Socialist Realism, firstly in separate speeches and then in print. In ‘Literaturnaya Gazeta’ of 23rd May 1932, a small portion of the speech of I.M. Gronskoi, the head of the Union of Soviet Writers, delivered at the meeting of the members of the literary groups of Moscow on 20th May 1932 was printed. In his speech it was stated that the question of the method must not be posed in the abstract and our approach must not be such that writers need to first go through a course on dialectical materialism and then pursue writing. The basic requirement is one of writing the truth and correctly portraying the reality which, in itself, is dialectical in nature. Therefore the main method of Soviet literature is the method of Socialist Realism.

On 29th May, the term Socialist Realism was first used in the editorial of ‘Literaturnaya Gazeta’ titled ‘To Work’. We have included the text of this editorial here.

The ‘Literaturnaya Gazeta’ was at that time a part of FOCP (Federation of Union of Soviet Writers) and in it Socialist Realism was declared, on behalf of the community of writers, as the method of Soviet Literature. In the article ‘To Work’ it is said that the masses demand from the writers truth and genuineness of revolutionary Socialist Realism in the portrayal of the proletarian revolution.

As we see, the term Socialist Realism was not a result of some personal inventions, as is portrayed by bourgeois sovietologists and revisionists, but of a natural and legitimate process of development of Soviet literature and aesthetic thought. It is not correct to say, as the critics of 1930-40’s believe, that Socialist Realism was widely used in 1932 in the speech of Stalin at the meeting of writers with Gorky.

The First Congress of Soviet Writers was held in August 1934. Understandably it had to come to an understanding of the central characteristics and principles of Soviet literature. Basing itself on the productive discussions on socialist realism that were held extensively among the writers and critics during 1932-1934, the Congress comprehensively examined the question of the creative method of Soviet literature and approved the charter of the Union of Soviet Writers in which it was stated that Socialist Realism is the centralmost method of Soviet literature and criticism.

The past few years saw many radical changes. We have built and are building the largest and the most technologically advanced industry in the world. The wide masses of peasants are firmly marching on the path of collective agriculture. The resolution of the party and the government on kolkhoz trade and trade by kolkhozniks is creating new conditions for increasing the food resources of the country and strengthening the kolkhozes.

No single epoch in the history of the world has witnessed such an upsurge of productive forces. Look at the map of the USSR. How fast its face is changing. New regions are coming up. The Urals are awash with all the colours of the colossal riches of its earth. The rivers are being transformed into unlimited sources of energy. The arid deserts of the Povolzhye are turning into rich wheat fields. Each gigantic construction is a new chapter in history. Around these a struggle is on to develop technology, for producing something new, a socialist person, brave warrior of its class, loyal torch bearer of the proletarian revolution and creator of a classless society.

How the people of our country have matured! What an upsurge of socialist consciousness!

The masses are going through the Leninist school of cultural revolution. The masses consisting of the proletariat, kolkhozniks, intelligentsia and the youth from among the workers, students and from the kolkhozes are demanding literature and books. They are in search of literary works on socialist construction, about the most complex and rich phenomena of our life and about the history of revolution and perspectives of the 5-year plans.

The decision of the Central Committee of the party ‘On the restructuring of the literary and artists’ organizations’ provides the foundation for intensive and fruitful work. The writers serve socialist construction through literary works. The writers face an important task - produce such works that scour away the habit of proprietorship from the consciousness of the people. Through art the writer would participate in building a classless society.

Liquidation of ‘groupism’ and administrative methods affected by the elite in the literary movements, of shrill acrimony and ending the separation of proletarian writers from the wider circles of Soviet writers make the accomplishment of their immediate tasks easier for the writers, i.e. to produce rich artistic-socialist literary works of great significance.

The world history has never known such promising conditions for writers. Nowhere and never before have the writers had such raw material before them, such exposure, such an epoch, such people, and such clarity of class distinctions. Just in recent days, in the work ‘History of the Civil War’, the nation was a witness to the feats of that heroic epoch which has already become a part of history and which is still largely like virgin land for literature. And this is just one part of the great book of revolution.

‘Truth’ in depiction of the revolution is a demand that we all can put before all the Soviet writers without exception. The writer, in his works, needs to portray the true and realistic picture of the revolutionary process in the society, its labour and victories, and accomplishment in deed of such a social formation in which there will be no exploitation of man by man. Truth is a threat for our enemies. A truthful examination of our reality and its faithful reflection in their artistic works is the finest way of understanding the just cause and the strength of the working class and for creating pieces of art that are needed by the people building socialism and struggling for the victory of the socialist revolution in the whole world. The masses demand from the writers – sincerity and truth about the revolutionary process of socialist realism in the depiction of the proletarian revolution.

‘Literaturnaya Gazeta’ 1932, 29th May.

The editorial in ‘Pravda’ titled ‘To inculcate love towards classical literature among school children’ is dedicated to the question of teaching literature in schools – a question of utmost importance. But the editorial also has a broader significance. Vulgar Sociologism (sotsiologizm in Russian – ed.), against which the editorial in Pravda is aimed, was at that time quite popular amongst the literary and art personalities and literary critics, had its own fervent advocates and along with formalism was a severe malady afflicting our literature and art. The famous Soviet scientist N.K. Piksanov named in the article was not the only or the most active representative of vulgar sociologism in literature.

Marxist-Leninist aesthetics evolved in the fight against vulgar sociologism and attained significant success. The vulgar sociological theories of Proletcult, simplistic assertions of RAPP, schematic ‘concepts’ of V. Pereverzev and his ‘school’ were subjected to severe criticism. In the mid 30’s, several pieces against vulgar sociologism in the theory and history of literature and art were published in the ‘Literaturnaya Gazeta’ and in the journal ‘Literaturnyi Kritik’ (M. Lifshits – ‘Leninism and Art Criticism’; I. Sergievskyi - ‘Sociologists and Problems of History of Russian Literature; M. Rosenthal – ‘Against Vulgar Sociologism in Literary Theory’ and other articles). But vulgar sociologism made an impact both in science and criticism and in the universities and school education.

‘Pravda’ – the organ of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) played an important role against vulgar sociologism. Vulgar Sociologism affected literary works. The article emphasizes a distinctive role of literature and art. It states that Soviet aesthetics is based on Lenin’s study of people’s art that led the Soviet literature and art on the path of closeness with people, their life and ideals.

The teaching of the classics at school level is a very important and responsible task. Along with mathematics and social sciences, teaching of the mother tongue is fundamental for the overall education of a child and attaining any noteworthy level of literacy in general. Besides this, literature at school level must serve as an important instrument to educate the coming generations, inculcate in them literary taste and love and loyalty for one’s motherland.

Unfortunately, teaching of literature in our schools is very badly organised. The programmes are not carefully planned and are removed from real life and the books are of a low standard. In the primary classes, for example, Pushkin is not taught at all, and an acquaintance with this great Russian poet is deferred till much higher classes. But even for higher classes the teaching plans laid out by the Ministry of Education are not particularly extensive. In class eight only three hours in a six day teaching week are set aside for Russian language, of which for literature - only two hours.

Only three hours in a six-day week! And the same amount of time is set aside for the German language.

Irrespective of what the programme for literature is – and we know that it is designed poorly – can there be any benefit from it if only two hours in a week are allotted for its fulfillment? No wonder that the students are imparted only bits and pieces of information on literature. No wonder that the teachers jump from one writer to another and impart extremely superficial knowledge to the students.

The ‘theories’ of vulgar sociologism are widespread among the teachers. The latter attempt to reduce the complexity and significance of the work of one or the other writer to an elementary characterisation of his class origins.

There is no proper laid out programme for literature – and the programme that exists is not properly planned out. Therefore, the students get only a superficial view of literature.

Amongst the teachers, the theory of ‘vulgar sociologism’ is very popular. They try to grasp the entire complexity of a particular writer in a trivial manner. Let us say, all that they have discovered in the works of Gogol, the author of the ‘Dead Souls’, is that he is a typical representative of the lower nobility or middle nobility. They are hardly in a position to explain, leave aside to understand the works of Gogol.

Similar simplistic theories are popular with some teachers since they do not demand much work and long hours of study. The study plan pushes these ill-prepared teachers to use these evidently wrong and harmful ‘theories’. It is necessary to reexamine the study plans, programmes and books on literature very carefully. At the same time, one should decisively combat these theories that reduce the whole wealth of our, and along with it the western, literature to barren formulas.

Let us take an example of such a theory here.

The author N.K. Piskanov in the book ‘Griboedov’ is very proud, according to him, of one of his discoveries: ‘Griboedov, I relate to the cultured, urbanised, middle nobility from the capital city. I include not only Griboedov but also Karamzin, Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov and Turgenev in this category.’

To explain the class basis of the works of a writer is the responsibility of all critics who call themselves Marxists. But the sad thing is that Piskanov reduces all the above-mentioned writers to the lowest common denominator.

Piskanov’s invention comes down to the following – ‘All this leads us to the fact that, ‘Plight of Being Intelligent’ (Gorye ot Uma in Russian – ed.) is a nobleman’s play... It is the greatest nobleman’s play ever – by its very content, its ideology, its main character and the author himself. Even its romance is that of a nobleman.’

After all this, one cannot understand why the Soviet schoolchildren need to carefully study this immortal comedy by Griboedov, why should it be staged in Soviet theatres and why even should one think about it at all if it is nothing more than a nobleman’s play. Publication of such books on literature that lead the reader astray is a shame for our publication houses.

Pushkin, the greatest of all poets, was a product of his times and his class but nobody before or after him has ever reflected the life of the country in such elegant images and such poetry. It is only in our times that the masterpieces of Pushkin have gained greatest popularity. Only the people who have been liberated from capitalist oppression have been able to fully judge Pushkin’s worth. The country is preparing to observe his death centenary on a grand scale. The Communist Party and the government is doing everything possible to popularise the works of Pushkin among the widest sections of the masses. And this is understandable as the people, its language, its character and its epics is the soil deep within which lie the roots of Pushkin’s genius.

We can no longer tolerate this distortion in the teaching of literature. The schoolchildren finishing middle school must have some knowledge not only about renowned Russian writers but also about the works of these writers.

The great artists of the past belong to the working class which has inherited all the cultural wealth of the previous classes and it is not in our interests to keep this wealth hidden and think of them as old rags as it is being attempted by vulgar sociologists. The great artists are still alive with us. Their works have not been lost as the best of these works inspired us and helped our people to move ahead and find their path towards liberation. These masterpieces by the classical writers by their very courage and passion can help our youth not only in understanding the past but also the present.

In contrast, the ‘vulgar sociologists’ by distorting the works of the classics kill all desire in the schoolchildren for studying classical literature. Our youth and schoolchildren are full of revolutionary enthusiasm and also have a feeling of disgust towards the dying classes. Their favourite heroes are those that fight against the exploitation of the working people. Naturally a contemptuous label of, say, a ‘nobleman’s play’ cannot elicit any appreciation for the classics from the youth.

Literature has great importance in gaining knowledge and in education. The masterpieces of the classics and contemporary writers must be thoroughly studied in the Soviet schools. It is time to put an end to vulgar sociologism in Soviet schools.

‘Pravda’, 1936, 8th August.

The resolution of the CC AUCP (b) ‘On Literary Criticism and Bibliography’, approved at the end of 1940, was directed towards improving the critical and bibliographical work in all the main fields of Soviet culture. Criticism and bibliography, as it is stressed in the resolution, are important instruments of propaganda, Communist education and improving the political and cultural-technical level of the masses.

A special place is accorded in the resolution to the question of criticism and bibliography in the field of literature. Criticism and bibliography in literature were at that time not good enough and presented the weakest link. The criticism of contemporary works of literature and art almost totally vanished from the pages of the journals and newspapers. The section devoted to criticism and bibliography were used for publication of historico-literary articles and reviews mainly of an informational nature. In the editorial of the ‘Literaturnaya Gazeta’ dated 30 August 1939 it was stated that ‘on reading these sections it is impossible to get an idea of even which books have been published in the previous month or, even more so, what events have occurred in the fields bordering arts. This is the extent of their ineptness and arbitrary nature and also of their avoidance of contemporary issues.’ The ‘Literary Review’ (1939, No. 17, p. 55) says that, regarding contemporary literary books, in the first three issues of the journals for the year 1939 not a single word is said in ‘Krasnaya Nov’, only one review of the book by G. Baidukov ‘Notes of a Pilot’ was published in the journal ‘Molodaya Gvardia’ and just a single article in ‘Novyi Mir’. The situation was no better in ‘Znamen’, ‘Oktyabr’ and journals published from Leningrad.

The resolution of the CC AUCP(b) "On Literary Criticism and Bibliography" was passed in such a situation and outlined means of overcoming it.

Taking into account that the majority of the critics ‘do not write on issues of Soviet literature and exert no influence on its formation’, and that contrary to the traditions of Russian literature ‘the critics do not work in literary and art journals’ and the writers ‘do not participate in the examination and evaluation of literary works and do not publish critical articles’, the CC AUCP(b) outlined a number of measure for improving critical and bibliographical work. The critics’ section under the Union of Writers was dissolved and the critics were sent to the section for prose, poetry and drama so that they could work there along with the writers. The publication of the ‘Literaturnyi Kritik’ as a separate journal was stopped. The journal ‘Literaturnoye Obozreniye’ was transferred to the Gorky Institute of World Literature and was reorganised as a handbook on literature. It was recommended to have permanent sections on criticism and bibliography in the literary journals ‘Krasnaya Nov’, ‘Oktyabr’, ‘Novyi Mir’, ‘Znamya’, ‘Zvezda’ and ‘Literaturnyi Sovremennik’. The resolution insists on that similar sections be created in in all central, republican, krai and district level journals and newspapers.

The implementation began immediately after the publication of the resolution of the CC AUCP(b) ‘On Literary Criticism and Bibliography’. All further critical-bibliographical work slowed down due to the Great Patriotic War.

In the recently approved resolution, the CC AUCP(b) remarks that literary criticism and bibliography, that are important instruments of propaganda and Communist education, continue to languish.

In recent times, literary critical material has almost totally vanished from the pages of the majority of journals and newspapers. Work on bibliographical recommendation that has an important role in improving the political and cultural-technical levels of the wide masses is also inadequately organized. Bibliographical handbooks and other recommended lists of books on various fields of science and literature for various professions are still not ready.

Critical and bibliographical work is isolated from the practical needs of socialist construction. Such scientific centres as the IMEL (The Institute of Marx-Engels-Lenin – ed.), Academy of the Sciences of the USSR, Academy of Agricultural Sciences named after Lenin as also the ministries have no organized critical and bibliographical work in their respective fields.

The CC AUCP(b) noted that the criticism in the area of literature is the weakest link. A majority of critics do not write on issues concerning Soviet literature and do not exert any influence on its formation. Contrary to the traditions of Russian literature the critics do not work in literary journals together with the writers and have confined themselves to the critical section under the Union of Writers. The writers in their turn do participate in the scrutiny and evaluation of literary works and do not publish criticism of literary works.

The CC AUCP(b) has outlined a number of measures for radically improving the work of literary criticism and bibliography.

The section for critics that was artificially created under the Union of Writers must be dissolved. The critics must work together with the writers in the respective artistic sections of the Union of Writers (prose, poetry and drama).

The publication of ‘Literaturnyi Kritik’ as a journal unconnected to literature and writers must be stopped. The editorial boards of the literary journals ‘Krasnaya Nov’, ‘Oktyabr’, ‘Novyi Mir’, ‘Znamya’, ‘Zvezda’ and ‘Literaturyi Sovremennik’ must create permanent sections devoted to criticism and bibliography in their journals.

The editorial boards of the newspapers ‘Pravda’, ‘Izvestia’, ‘Komsomolskaya Pravda’, ‘Trud’, ‘Krasnaya Zvezda’, all the republican, krai and district level newspapers as well as newspapers and journals of the various economic and production departments must also create sections devoted to criticism and bibliography.

The critical and bibliographical sections of the central political newspapers and journals must also, along with reviews and bibliographical notes on individual books, systematically publish reviews of literature from various fields of science.

The editorial boards of theoretical and political journals ‘Bolshevik’, ‘Pod Znamenem Marksizma’, ‘V Pomosh Marksistsko-Leninskomu Obrazovaniyu’, ‘Marksist-Istorik’, ‘Istoricheski Zhurnal’, ‘Problemi Ekonomiki’, ‘Partinoye Stroitelstvo’, ‘Sputnik Agitatora’, ‘Mirovoe Khozyaistvo I Mirovaya Politika’ and ‘Molodoi Bolshevik’ along with publication of literary and critical articles and reviews on noteworthy books must also arrange for the publication of bibliographies and notes on literature appropriate for their respective readers.

The republic, krai and district level newspapers must regularly publish lists of books and articles on important literary works that it recommends as well as reviews on all literature published by local publishers.

The departmental newspapers and journals must include a permanent section on criticism and bibliography and must organize the work in a manner that all special literature gets reviewed in print. The reviews on literature from each branch of production must be published not less than once every quarter. The journal and newspapers from the branches of production must regularly recommend for the workers, the engineers and the technical staff a list of literature on each form of production and profession and also inform them about major works of foreign technical literature.

The CC AUCP(b) points out the necessity of fully intensifying the work on bibliography by concentrating such work in the following scientific institutions.

The bibliographical recommendations for literature on the branches of production should be concentrated in the central libraries of the ministries.

The CC AUCP(b) has made it obligatory for the editors in the ministries to organize the work of bibliographical recommendations for all technical literature in their respective fields and also preparing references to foreign technical literature.

Preparation of the list of recommended literature for public city and rural libraries has been entrusted to the Lenin All Union Library. The journal ‘Shto Delat’ is being organized as a fortnightly list of recommended literature for the librarians of the public city and rural libraries and reading rooms.

The Academy of Sciences must begin the publication of a major bibliographical work for all the fields of science and knowledge under the title ‘Kniga o Knigakh’ in 1941.

The resolution of the CC AUCP(b) suggests to carry out centralization of all state registered bibliography and statistics in an All Union House of Books. The House of Books will be entrusted to carry out a complete survey of all literature published during the years of Soviet power.

‘Party Construction’, 1940, No. 22, Pg. 62-64.

Click here to return to the April 2002 index.