- Mukhina.jpg (12.54 KiB) Viewed 2003 times
This talk was given by Bill Bland to the 'Stalin Society' in 1993. He later expanded this talk in some detail, into the manuscript here.
It gives a history of Socialist Realism in the society of its birth - the Soviet Union.
It also depicts leftist-revisionist strands in art policy in the USSR.
In part Alliance has discussed these revisionist elements before (See Alliance 7 on Ultra-leftism in the Communist Academy & Proletkult:
at:
http://www.allianceML.com/AllianceIssue ... ADEMY.html ).
But Bill's analysis goes much further than this, and he comprehensively covers many of the usual controversies as thrown out by liberal aesthetes, who charge Stalin with having "killed the arts and artists".
As a talk, slide and tape cues are given.
This version does not include the musical clips, but does include some slide clips as used by Bland in his talk.
Missing segments are indicated.
As far as possible, pictures of slides are credited with the web-source from where they were derived.
Editors Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America)
August 2004
INTRODUCTION -- ART AND SOCIETY
ART is a form of production in which the producer (the artist strives by his product (the work of art) to create certain thoughts or feelings in the minds of its consumers.
A product which is exclusively artistic and has no other significant function is termed fine art. A product which is primarily functional may be secondarily a work of art if its producer has been concerned not merely with its function but also with creating certain thoughts of feelings in the minds of its users. Such art is termed applied art.
The content of a work of art is its subject
The form of a work of art is the manner or style in which the artist has presented the content of his work of art.
Realism is a trend in art which seeks to represent its subject faithfully and truthfully.
An artist is a member of society, so that the art of a particular time and place cannot but be influenced by the social environment existing in that time and place.
When and where a particular a social system is in harmony with the needs of the mass of the people, the prevailing thought tends to be rational, favourable to science and optimistic, while the prevailing art tends to be realistic.
When and where a particular social system has outlived its usefulness to the majority of the people, the prevailing thought tends to be irrational, unfavourable to science and pessimistic while the prevailing art tends to be unrealistic, tends to degenerate into a greater or lesser degree of abstraction.
SLIDE 1: MARGARITONE OF AREZZO: ALTAR-PIECE.
- Margaritone.jpeg (32.17 KiB) Viewed 2001 times
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-b ... mber=NG564
Thus, in Europe in the late Middle Ages, when the long-established social system of feudalism was in decline, the prevailing art was typically Byzantine in style -- like this altar-piece by Margaritone of Arezzo* in the National Gallery, painted in the late 13th century. Painting from real life had by this time come to be regarded as heretical, and artists tended to confine themselves to making copies of works of art previously approved by the Church. Thus, Byzantine art tended to be flat and lifeless.
Then, in the 14th century, above all in Italy, the embryonic capitalist class began to exert its influence, giving rise to that flowering of science, art and culture we call the Renaissance.
SLIDE 2: CARAVAGGIO : 'THE SUPPER AT EMMAUS'
- emmaus.jpg (160.75 KiB) Viewed 2001 times
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/cara ... s.jpg.html
The difference between this picture by Caravaggio* and the previous one by Margaritone is not just a matter of improved technique, the use of light and shade, the mastery of perspective. The main difference is that it is no longer based on previous works of art; it is painted from life and it glows with realism.
SLIDE 3: GIOVANNI BELLINI: 'THE DOGE LEONARDO LOREDANO'.
- Bellini.jpeg (7.35 KiB) Viewed 2001 times
http://search.famsf.org:8080/view.shtml ... &=1&=&=And
This sumptuous portrait of the Doge of Venice, by Giovanni Bellini*, conveys with realism all the pomp and prosperity of the wealthy state of Venice.
Most sitters of the Renaissance and the rising embryonic capitalist class felt self-confident, and did not demand that painters prettified them. Thus, Oliver Cromwell* ordered the painter Peter Lely* to paint him 'warts and all'.
SLIDE 4: ATTRIBUTED TO QUENTIN MASSYS: PORTRAIT OF AN OLD WOMAN
- massys.JPG (32.91 KiB) Viewed 2001 times
http://www.abcgallery.com/M/massys/massys4.html
And this sitter no doubt gave the same instructions to her painter.
SLIDE 5: PIETER DE HOOCH: 'INTERIOR OF A DUTCH HOUSE'
- Hooch.jpg (59.13 KiB) Viewed 2001 times
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/de ... er_de.html
In the 17th century we find Dutch painters like Pieter De Hoochpainting realistically the interiors of bourgeois houses like this, in which he expresses his joy in painting sunlight. The figure standing before the fireplace was an afterthought added to improve the design of the grouping, and that is why the black-and-white tiles of the floor can be seen through the woman's skirt.
But when a social system ceases to serve the interests of the majority of the people -- for example, in France in the years immediately preceding the French Revolution of 1792 sensitive artists, other than conscious revolutionaries, find reality too unpleasant and sordid to portray realistically, so that they tend to reject realism in favour of falsity.
SLIDE 6: JEAN-HONORE FRAGONARD: 'THE SWING'
- Fragonard.jpg (47.88 KiB) Viewed 2001 times
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/de ... onore.html
Jean Fragonard* was court painter at Versailles in the years just prior to the French Revolution. This painting, 'The Swing', is typical of the artificiality of his work. The decadent court is concealed in a completely false world of eternal youth and perpetual pleasure, of endless summer filled with laughter and the scent of flowers.
In the twentieth century, capitalism reached the stage of imperialism, where it became ever more clearly contrary to the interests of the mass of the people.
In such a period, revolutionary artists make use of realism to further the revolutionary cause. But the honest, sensitive artist who is not a revolutionary, who sees no way out of existing social problems, finds reality too painful to portray, and consequently moves away from realism.
Even in the 19th century, artists like William Turner* began to sense the poverty and exploitation which lay behind the surface of Victorian prosperity, and to move away from realism.
SLIDE 7: J. M. WILLIAM TURNER: 'RAIN, STEAM AND SPEED'
- turner.jpg (35.44 KiB) Viewed 2001 times
http://www.j-m-w-turner.co.uk/artist/tu ... -steam.htm
In this late picture by Turner of a train crossing a viaduct, the train is not the realistic assembly of gleaming pistons which would have brought joy to the heart of George Stephenson*. The train is no more than an impression, lost in the wild rush of colour of the elements and the steam from the engine.
Today capitalism has been in increasing decay for almost a century.
Britain, once the workshop of the world, has been turned into an industrial museum; some four million people are out of work and school-leavers face the prospect of spending all their lives on social security; in the heart of London, thousands of people are forced to sleep in the open air winter and summer . . .
So, with the coming of imperialism, which is capitalism in its final stage, capitalism in decay, reality became uglier still, and honest, sensitive artists who are not socialists reject even the impression of reality.
Among the many non-realistic artistic trends which arose in the 20th century is Cubism, associated particularly with the name of Picasso.
SLIDE 8: PABLO PICASSO: 'PORTRAIT OF M. KAHNWEILER'
- Picasso.jpeg (23.87 KiB) Viewed 2001 times
http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/works/ ... 10-01.html
In later Cubism the image is first cut up into geometrical forms, then these are shifted around. In this portrait by Picasso, all we can recognise are fragmentary aspects of the sitter's waistcoat and face drowned in chaos.
SLIDE 9: SALVADOR DALI: 'SUBURBS OF THE PARANOIC-CRITICAL TOWN
- Dali.jpeg (39.29 KiB) Viewed 2001 times
http://www.fotos.org/galeria/showphoto. ... 520/page/7
Another 20th century non-realistic artistic trend was Surrealism, allegedly based on the unconscious mind, the dreams of which are declared to be more real than objective reality. The Spanish-born painter Salvador Dali* deserted Cubism for Surrealism. His paintings -- like this one, entitled 'Suburbs of the Paranoic-Critical Town' -- are naturalistic in appearance, but with objects in the weirdest juxtaposition -- a temple, an armchair, a horse's skull and a girl with a bunch of grapes.
Of course, this movement from realism is not confined to the visual arts.
In the theatre, for instance, it has produced a whole trend known as 'the Theatre of the Absurd'. Here 'absurd' is used in the sense of 'incongruous', 'illogical', 'contrary to reason'. It is often humorous, but its humour comes not from satire on real life, but from incongruity. It is the humour of 'Monty Python'. It portrays life and the world as senseless and meaningless:
A milestone in the development of 'the Theatre of the Absurd' was the play 'Waiting for Godot', written in French by the Irish playwright Samuel Beckett*, and first published in Paris in 1952."The Theatre of the Absurd is . . . part of the 'anti-literary' movement of our time, which has found its expression in abstract painting".
(Martin J. Esslin: 'The Theatre of the Absurd'; Harmondsworth; 1977; p. 26).
The play is set in a country lane where two tramps are waiting for a mysterious person called Godot. As they wait, they converse in the manner of cross-talk comedians on the variety stage. Eventually a boy arrives and tells them that Godot is not coming that day. In the second act, they continue to talk as they wait for Godot, and again the boy comes to tell them that Godot won't be coming.
As one eminent critic has put it: 'Waiting for Godot' is a play in which nothing happens -- twice!
Here are the last few lines of the play:
RECORDING 1: EXTRACT: 'WAITING FOR GODOV.
They do not move, and the curtain falls."Vladimir: We'll hang ourselves tomorrow….. Unless Godot comes. Estragon: And if he comes?
Vladimir: We'll be saved.
Estragon: Well? Shall we go?
Vladimir: Pull on your trousers.
Estragon: What?
Vladimir: Pull on your trousers.
Estragon: You want me to pull off my trousers?
Vladimir: Pull ON your trousers.
Estragon: True.
Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?
Estragon: Yes, let's go".
(Samuel Beckett: 'En attendant Godot, piece en deux actes'; London; 1966; p. 88).
The American playwright William Saroyan*, who greatly admires the play, says:
In the field of music, the retreat from realism has taken the form of atonality. If you listen to this scale –"The play is about nothing. All is nothing. All comes to nothing".
(William Saroyan: 'A Few Words about Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot"': Record Sleeve).
KEYBOARD DEMONSTRATION: INCOMPLETE DIATONIC SCALE.
-- something is clearly missing. We are left hanging in the air, unsatisfied, waiting for 'the other shoe' to drop. Tonality is a system of relations between tones having a tonic or central pitch as its most important element. In atonal music, all sense of key or resting place is lost. There are no longer 'consonances' and 'dissonances', but only varying degrees of dissonance.
Here is a piece of modern atonal music -- 'Duo for Two Violins in the Sixth-Tone System', by the Czech composer Alois Haba*.
RECORDING 2: EXTRACT: ALOIS HABA: 'DUO FOR 1140 VIOLINS IN THE SIXTH-TONE SYSTEM'
Atonal composers say that in rejecting tonality, they are liberating music from restrictions. Yet Bach, Beethoven and Mozart did not feel restricted by tonality.
The fact is that, unlike the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, who did not feel themselves restricted by tonality, this kind of music fails to move listeners. It does not do so -- it is unloved -- because it has rejected melody, it has rejected realism.
What limits modern composers is not tonality, but paucity of ideas.
In some respects, the music of composers like Haba has its counterpart in the junk music of 'pop'.
Here is an extract of a group called 'The Swirlies' playing a piece called 'Blondatonaudiobaton' -- whatever that may mean.
RECORDING 3: EXTRACT: THE SWIRLIES: 'BLONDATONAUDIOBATON
It is not accidental that pop concerts have become associated with drugs -- for the music itself (if one can call it that) has many of the characteristics of a drug.
Capitalism in decay survives by means of the old Roman policy of 'Divide and Rule' -- by dividing black from white, office worker from manual worker, Protestant from Catholic, and -- as in the case of 'pop music' -- young from old. Indeed,, in a society where there is hopeless mass unemployment the ideal young person is one who is too stoned to do anything more than stagger down to the chemist's and collect his methodone.
As George Melly*, puts it, pop is:
AESTHETICS IN THE SOVIET UNION (1917-1932)". . . based on the corruption of standards deliberately engineered by skilful vested interests for their own gain. . . .
Pop is in many ways an ersatz culture feeding off its own publicity….
It draws no conclusions. It makes no comments. It proposes no solutions".
(George Melly: 'Revolt into Style: The Pop Arts in Britain'; Harmondsworth; 1972; p. 6, 7).
Aesthetics is the science of quality in art.
Marx, Engels and Lenin did not develop a thoroughgoing theory of aesthetics, and even their passing comments on the subject were not systematically investigated until the 1930s.
After the Russian Socialist Revolution of November 1917, in the absence of any authoritative guidelines, all kinds of artistic trends flowered, including many from the West.
'Proletarian Culture' (1920-24)
There was general agreement in Soviet Russia that culture in a socialist state, a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, should be 'proletarian culture'. But there was no agreement as to what 'proletarian culture' should consist of.
One influential view was that put forward by Aleksandr Bogdanov*, who became the leader of the 'Proletarian Cultural and Educational Associations, (Proletkult), formed in September 1917.
The leaders of Proletkult held that 'proletarian culture' must be a new, specially created culture:
They also demanded that there should be no leadership of Proletkult by the Party:"Its (Proletkult's -- Ed.) members actually denied the cultural legacy of the past. . . . isolated themselves from life and aimed at setting up a special 'proletarian culture'. (Note to: Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Collected Works', Volume 31; Moscow; 1974; p. 567).
Lenin was strongly opposed to Bogdanov's conception of 'proletarian culture', insisting that it should be a natural development of all that was best in previous world culture:"Proletkult continued to insist on independence, thus setting itself in opposition to the proletarian state".
(Note to: Vladimir I. Lenin; 'Collected Works', Volume 31; ibid.; p. 567)
"Marxism . . . has . . . assimilated and refashioned everything of value in the more than two thousand years of the development of human thought and culture. Only further work on this basis and in this direction . . . can be recognised as the development of a genuine proletarian culture".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'On Proletarian Culture' (October 1920), in: 'Collected Works', Volume 31; ibid.; p. 317).
Lenin further demanded that:"Only a precise knowledge and transformation of the culture created by the entire development of mankind will enable us to create a proletarian culture. The latter . . . is not an invention of those who call themselves experts in proletarian culture. That is all nonsense. Proletarian culture must be the logical development of the store of knowledge mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist, landowner and bureaucratic society".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Tasks of the Youth Leagues' (October 1920), in: 'Collected Works', Volume 31; ibid.; p. 287).
The Proletkult organisations declined in the 1920s:". . . all Proletkult organisations . . . accomplish their tasks under the general guidance of the Soviet authorities (specifically of the People's Commissariat of Education) and of the Russian Communist Party".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'On Proletarian Culture' (October 1920), in: 'Collected Works', Volume 31; ibid.; p. 317).
The Period of Party Neutrality in Aesthetics (1925-1932)" . . . ceasing to exist in 1932'.
(Note to: Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Collected Works', Volume 31; ibid.; p.567).
In May 1925 Stalin put forward a view which expressed the basis of an objective Marxist-Leninist aesthetic -- that proletarian culture should be socialist in content and national in form:
However, the leadership of the Party rejected the conception of aesthetics put forward by Stalin, and in June 1925 adopted:"Proletarian culture . . . is socialist in content . . . national in form".
(Josef V. Stalin: 'The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East', in: 'Works', Volume 7; Moscow; 1954; p. 140).
This resolution was entitled 'On the Policy of the Party in the Field of Literature', and declared the Party's neutrality between aesthetic trends:" . a rambling, repetitious, verbose and pompous document".
(Edward J. Brown: 'The Proletarian Episode in Russian Literature: 1928-1932'; New York; 1935)(hereafter listed as 'Edward J. Brown (1935)'); p. 43).
Edward J. Brown* comments:"The Party can in no way bind itself in adherence to any one direction in the sphere of artistic form. . . . All attempts to bind the Party to one direction at the present phase of cultural development of the country must be firmly rejected.
Therefore the Party must pronounce in favour of free competition between the various groupings and streams in this sphere. . . .
Similarly unacceptable would be the passing of a decree or party decision awarding a legal monopoly in matters of literature and publishing to some group or literary organisation, . . . for this would mean the destruction of proletarian literature".
(Resolution of CC, RCP, 'On the Party's Policy in the Field of Literature' (July 1925), in: C. Vaughan James: 'Soviet Socialist Realism'; London; 1973; p;. 118, 119).
The adoption of this 'liberal' attitude towards aesthetics was due to the fact that the Party leadership at this time was dominated by revisionists, by concealed opponents of socialism. The Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party elected after the 13th Congress of the Party in June 1924 consisted of (in alphabetical order):"As a result of that liberal policy, the years from 1921 to 1932 saw the growth of a literature in Russia which is thoroughly congenial to the tastes of Western intellectuals".
(Edward J. Brown: 'Russian Literature since the Revolution'; London; 1963 (hereafter listed as 'Edward J. Brown (1963)'; p. 23).
Nikolay I. Bukharin*,
Lev B. Kamenev*;
Aleksey I. Rykov*;
Josef V. Stalin;
Mikhail P. Tomsky*;
Lev D. Trotsky*;
Grigory E. Zinoviev*.
(Leonard Schapiro: 'The Communist Party of the Soviet Union'; London; 1960; p. 607).
The revisionist control over literature in the next period was exercised through the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers (RAPP), founded in 1920, which published the journal 'On Literary Guard' from 1926 to 1932. RAPP was headed by the concealed Trotskyist Leopold Averbakh*, who exercised a virtual dictatorship over literature:
Averbakh was the brother-in-law of Genrikh Yagoda*, at this time Deputy Commissar for Internal Affairs, who later, in 1938, admitted in open court to treason:"Averbakh exercised a virtual dictatorship over early Soviet Russian literature".
(Robert H. Stacy: 'Russian Literary Criticism: A Short History'; New York; 1974; p. 196).
"Averbakh's first book, published in 1923, had appeared with a preface by Trotsky".
(Edward J. Brown (1963): op. cit.; p. 217).
"In 1937 Averbakh was unmasked as an agent of Trotsky, one whose errors formed a pattern of subversion in Soviet literature"'.
(Norah Levin: 'The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917: Paradoxes of Survival', Volume 2; London; 1990; p. 863).
In the absence of any Party guidance on aesthetics, the Trotskyites in the leadership of RAPP caused great harm to Soviet literature during the period of their domination, partly by their sectarianism:"The main figure, Averbakh, had come under the protection of his relative by marriage, Yagoda. . . . Soon after Yagoda's arrest, he (Averbakh -- Ed.,) was attacked as a Trotskyite".
(Robert Conquest: 'The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties'; Harmondsworth; 1971; p. 446).
"The RAPP leaders . . . were, shortly after the Moscow Trial of 1937, accused of having been themselves Trotskyists".
(Edward J. Brown (1935): op. cit.; p. 223).
For example, during the period of the First Five-Year Plan (1929-34) the leaders of RAPP decreed in 1930 that only literature which directly boosted the Plan should be published:"Averbakh was sectarian and oppressively dogmatic in his treatment of literary questions".
(Victor Terras: p. 29; 'Handbook of Russian Literature'; New Haven (USA); 1985;)
As might have been expected:"'Literature should help the Five-Year Plan' was the slogan. . . .
The depiction of the Five-Year Plan is the one and only problem of Soviet literature, proclaimed the organ of RAPP in 1930. . . .
For about three years, the Five-Year Plan became the only subject of Soviet literature".
(Gleb Struve: 'Soviet Russian Literature'; London; 1935; p. 86, 229).
Even more serious, the leaders of RAPP used their positions to persecute writers who attempted to follow a socialist line in their art *-- this extending even to such famous and outstanding artists as Maksim Gorky*, Mikhail Sholokhov* and Vladimir Mayakovsky*." . . . the result was a drying-up of the creative sources of Russian literature and a narrowing-down of its themes".
(Gleb Struve: ibid.; p. 229).
The Case of Maksim Gorky
The persecution of Maksim Gorky by the Soviet revisionists, particularly Grigory Zinoviev, became so serious that in 1921 Gorky was forced to leave Soviet Russia and move to Italy:
"His (Gorky's --Ed.) relations with Zinoviev, the local dictator at Petrograd, became so strained that he left Russia in the autumn of 1921.
(Jeanne Vronskaya & Vladimir Chuguev: 'The Biographical Dictionary of the Former Soviet Union: Prominent People in All Fields from 1917 to the Present'; London; 1992; p. 157).
in whose feud with Gorky:"Partly on account of his disagreements with the leading Bolsheviks (Zinoviev and Kamenev -- Ed.). Gorky went abroad again in 1921".
(Anthony K. Thorlby (Ed.): 'Penguin Companion to Literature', Volume 2; Harmondsworth; 1969; p. 325).
"Gorky did make a dire enemy of one of the new masters: Zinioviev".
(Dan Levin: 'Stormy Petrel: The Life and Work of Maksim Gorky' London; 1967; p. 198).
In 1928 the attacks on Gorky were taken up by the still concealed revisionists in the leadership of RAPP, headed by Averbakh. For example, in February 1928 Gorky was being depicted in the RAPP journal as:"Zinoviev was supported by Kamenev. . . . It was the weakening of Gorky's position in Soviet Russia, a growing sense of disillusionment and helplessness, that finally made him leave in 1921, not his health".
(Dan Levin: ibid.; p. 210).
Averbakh's attacks on Gorky in 'On Literary Guard' were echoed in the journal 'The Present', published by the Siberian writers' association, which had been founded by Semyon Rodov* (formerly of the RAPP triumvirate). This journal described Gorky as:"a man without class consciousness".
('On Literary Guard', February 1928; p. 94).
But by this time the exposure of the Opposition had reached the point where these attacks could be countered:" . a crafty, disguised enemy".
('The Present', Nos. 8 & 9, 1929, in: C. Vaughan James: op. cit.; p. 74).
"In tirades of mounting fury, Gorky was called a class enemy and said to be a protector of anti-Soviet elements".
(C. Vaughan James: ibid.; p 74).
and administered:"At this point the Party stepped in with a resolution 'On the Statement of Part of the Siberian Writers and Literary Organisations against Maksim Gorky"'.
(C. Vaughan James: ibid.; p. 74).
During Gorky's enforced absence abroad, Stalin continued to support him, writing to him, for example, in Italy in January 1930:"a firm reprimand to the Communist fraction of the Siberian Proletkult".
(C. Vaughan James: ibid.; p. 74).
But by 1931 the revisionists seemed to have been finally defeated, and Gorky felt it safe to return to the Soviet Union. He returned to Moscow in 1931 after the fall of his arch-enemy, Zinoviev. (Jeanne Vronskaya and Vladimir Chuguev: op. cit.; p. 157)."I am told you need a physician from Russia, Is that so? Whom do you want? Let us know and we shall send him".
(J. V. Stalin: Letter to Maksim Gorky, January 1930, in: 'Works', Volume 12; Moscow; 1955; p. 183).
Since:
But concealed revisionists continued to plot against Gorky. By utilising the services of medical members of the conspiracy, Genrikh Yagoda -- who was Commissar for Internal Affairs from 1934 to 1936 -- had arranged the murder of Gorky's son, Maksim Peshkov, in 1934 and that of Gorky himself in 1936:". . the defeat of the Communist Opposition . . . must have seemed . . to Gorky the harbinger of unity. Zinoviev . . . had been Gorky's arch-tormentor".
(Dan Levin: op. cit.; p. 264).
The physician Dmitry Pletnev told the Court:YAGODA: Yenukidze ". . . told me that the centre had decided to undertake a number of terrorist acts against members of the Political Bureau and, in addition, against Maksim Gorky personally. . . . Yenukidze explained to me that the 'bloc of Rights and Trotskyites' . . . regarded Gorky as a dangerous figure. Gorky was a staunch supporter of Stalin's leadership, and in case the conspiracy was put into effect, he would undoubtedly raise his voice against us, the conspirators. . . .
VYSHINSKY: Do you admit being guilty of the murder of Alexey Maksimovich Gorky?
YAGODA: I do."
(Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet 'Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites'; Moscow; 1938; p. 574, 577).
The Case of Mikhail Sholokhov"PLETNEV: No extraneous poisonous substances were introduced, but he (Gorky -- Ed.) was subjected to a regime which was harmful. All the medicines were permissible, but in the individual case of Gorky they were harmful. . . .
VYSHINSKY: Formulate briefly the particulars of the plan which you drew up together with Levin (co-defendant physician Lev Levin -- Ed.) for the killing of Aleksey Maksimovich Gorky.
PLETNEV: To tire out the organism and thus lower its power of resistance.
VYSHINSKY: For what purpose?
PLETNEV: To bring about Gorky's death".
(Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet 'Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites'; ibid.; p. 591, 593).
One of the finest Soviet novels is 'The Quiet Don', written in 1928-40 by the Cossack writer Mikhail Sholokhov who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature for the work in 1965. An English translation of the novel was published in two parts, entitled respectively 'Quiet Flows the Don' and 'The Don Flows Home to the Sea'.
'The Quiet Don' is, above all:
among the Cossacks.". . . a harsh denunciation of the policy pursued by the Trotskyites".
(Geir Kjetsaa et al: 'The Authorship of "The Quiet Don"'; Oslo; 1984; p. 17).
Almost immediately after the publication of the first volume of the novel in the journal 'October' in 1929, rumours began to circulate that 'The Quiet Don' was a plagiarism, that it had been written not by Sholokhov, but by someone else -- the favourite candidate being another Cossack writer, Fedor Kryukov*:
These rumours were, understandably, spread by"Rumours of plagiarism started to circulate as far back as 1928, simultaneously with the appearance of the first volume in the literary journal 'October"'.
(Geir Kjetsaa et al: op. cit.; p. 15).
As a result of these rumours,". . . supporters of Trotsky. . . .
Even if Trotsky at that time had left the Soviet Union, some of his earlier adherents were still in power. One of them was S. I. Syrtsov* (1893-1938), . . ., an eager supporter of Trotsky's brutal policy towards the Cossacks".
(Geir Kjetsaa et al: op. cit.; p. 17).
Sholokhov protested to the Party newspaper 'Pravda', which organised a special commission, headed by the writer Aleksandr Serafimovich*, to investigate the allegations. To this body, Sholokhov submitted his manuscripts and notes." at the beginning of 1929, the editorial board (of 'October' -- Ed.), decided to discontinue the publication of the novel".
(Geir Kjetsaa et al: op. cit.; p. 16).
In January 1930 Sholokhov had a meeting with Stalin, on which he (Sholokhov) commented:"At the end of March 1929, 'Pravda' published a letter in which the charges against Sholokhov were refuted as 'malicious slander' spread by enemies of the proletarian dictatorship".
('Pravda', 29 March 1929; p. 4).
"The conversation was very profitable to me and encouraged me to put into practice new creative ideas".
(Herman Ermolaev: 'Mikhail Sholokhov and his Art'; Princeton (USA); 1982 (herafter listed as 'Herman Ermolkav (1982); p. 29).
By 1934, as we have seen [Editor: See prior writings via the Index pages of Alliance], the Soviet state security organs had come under the control of concealed revisionists, and in 1938:
Sholokhov was accused of::"the NKVD began a large-scale operation against Sholokhov".
(Herman Ermolaev (1982): ibid.; p. 41).
In October 1938, the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU carried out an investigation, in which Stalin played a leading role, into the charges against Sholokhov. These were found to be groundless. Sholokhov said in 1969 that:"preparing an uprising of the . . . Cossacks against the Soviet regime".
(Herman Ermolaev (1982): op. cit.; p. 41).
In the 1960s the charges of plagiarism against Sholokhov were renewed by the historian Roy Medvedev*, who admitted that:" . . . Stalin looked closely into everything, and all the accusations against me were smashed to smithereens".
(Herman Ermolaev (1982): op. cit.; p;., 42).
Nevertheless, Medevedev concluded:". . . it is a fact that Fedor Kryukov's son was among the Cossacks who emigrated to the west and he never made any claims against Sholokhov. No such claims were made anywhere in emigre Cossack literature".
(Roy A. Medvedev: 'Problems in the Literary Biography of Mikhail Sholokhov'; Cambridge; 1966 (hereafter listed as 'Roy A. Medvedev (1966)'; p. 204).
The main reason presented for this conclusion was the view that:"While we must refrain as yet from any definitive solutions and conclusions, the mass of new data seems to us to speak in favour of the now familiar theory of the double authorship of 'The Quiet Don' ".
(Roy A. Medvedev (1966): op. cit.; p.
In 1974 the charges of plagiarism against Sholokhov were revived in an anonymous pamphlet published in Paris, with a foreword by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn*. The pamphlet, in Russian, was entitled 'The Current of "The Quiet Don: Riddles of the Novel'. Reviving the old, discredited slanders of the 1920s, it claimed that:". . . Sholokhov was too young to have produced such a mature piece of work".
(Roy A. Medvedev (1966): op. cit.; p. 202).
A more recent study, published in 1982 by the American expert Herman Ermolaev*, based on computer textual analysis of the work of Sholokhov and Kryukov, concludes that:"the bulk of 'The Quiet Don' had been written not by Mikhail Sholokhov, but by . . . Fedor Kryukov".
(Geir Kjetsaa et al: op. cit.; p. 7).
Similar computer textual analysis also compelled Geir Kjetsaa et al. to conclude in 1984 that:"no evidence has so far been presented to show that Sholokhov utilised someone else's imaginative work for writing 'The Quiet Don'. Until there is convincing evidence to the contrary, Sholokhov ought to be treated as the sole author of 'The Quiet Don"'.
(Herman Ermolaev (1982): op. cit.; p. 300).
The Case of Vladimir Mayakovsky"the use of mathematical statistics permits us to exclude the possibility of Kryukov having written the novel, whereas Sholokhov cannot be excluded as the author".
(Geir Kjetsaa et al: op. cit. p. 152).
The poet Vladimir Mayakovsky is regarded as:
He wrote poems on topical matters, in ordinary everyday language, and travelled from town to town and village to village, reciting them."the real troubadour of the Revolution".
(Herbert Marshall (Ed.): 'Mayakovsky'; London; 1965 (henceforth listed as 'Herbert Marshall (Ed.) (1965)'); p. 18).
In April 1930 Mayakovsky committed suicide by shooting himself, leaving a note.
The story was widely spread that he had:
Indeed, the official report of the investigation into his death his death (issued less than 24 hours after his death) was at pains to deny that death was connected with his social or literary activity:"committed suicide because of a romantic and unfortunate love affair".
(Gleb Struve: op. cit.; p. 167).
But, as Shakespeare expressed it:"The preliminary data of the investigation show that the suicide was due to causes of a purely personal character, having nothing to do with the social or literary activity of the poet". ('Pravda', 15 April 1930, in: Herbert Marshall (Ed.) (1965): op. cit.; p. 28-29).
In fact, it was in October 1929 that Mayakovsky was informed that the girl he thought himself in love with -- Tatiana Yalovleva*, the daughter of a White Russian emigrant living in Paris -- had married someone else:"Men have died from time to time, and worms have eaten them, but not for love".
(William Shakespeare: 'As You like it', Act 4, Scene 1, in: 'The Complete Works', Feltham; 1979; p. 226).
His suicide occurred only in April of-the following year -- six months later -- so that one must agree with Helen Muchnic when she declares:"In October Lilya Brik* received a letter from her sister Elsa (Elsa Triolet* -- Ed.) . . . : 'Tatyana has got married"'.
(A. D. P. Briggs: 'Vladimir Mayakovsky: A Tragedy'; Oxford; 1979; p. 114).
It is clear that some event or events must have occurred in the spring of 1930 which were more immediate causes of his suicide."It is absurd to think, as some have done, that he 'died for love' in the sentimentally romantic sense".
(Helen Muchnic: 'From Gorky to Pasternak: Six Writers in Soviet Russia'; New York; 1961; p. 263).
In fact. in February 1930, with the aim of bringing himself closer to his audience, Mayakovsky had joined the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers (RAPP):
But, as we have seen, RAPP had fallen under the control of a gang of concealed revisionists, headed by Leopold Averbakh, who exerted a reactionary dictatorship over the arts. Thus, in joining RAPP:"Mayakovsky joined RAPP in order to get closer to his workers' auditorium".
(Viktor B. Shklovsky: '0 Mayakovskom' (On Mayakovsky); Moscow; 1940; p. 215).
Averbakh and his bureaucratic cronies made it clear that Mayakovsky was a far from welcome recruit to RAPP. They insisted that he required ‘re-education in proletarian ideology', making him feel isolated and depressed:"Mayakovsky . . . fell into a dead sea".
(Viktor B. Shklovsky: ibid.; p. 215).
"There is no doubt that he felt his own increasing isolation and sensed the cloud of disapproval that in fact hung over him. . . . The bureaucrats in control of RAPP . . . did not very much want him in their organisation.
Mayakovsky was not warmly welcomed in RAPP and . . . in this mass organisation he felt isolated and alone. . . . From February until April 1930 the secretariat of RAPP constantly hauled Mayakovsky over the coals in a trivial and didactic fashion. . . . From the moment of his entry until his suicide, the 'secretariat' of that organisation occupied itself with 're-educating' him in the spirit of proletarian ideology, and literature, a truly depressing experience. Some people recalled that on the eve of his suicide . . . he was in a state of defenceless misery as a result of his sessions with the talentless dogmatists and petty literary tyrants whose organisation he had joined".
(Edward J. Brown: 'Mayakovsky: A Poet in the Revolution'; Princeton (USA): 1973 (hereafter listed as 'Edward J. Brown; (1973)'); p. 362-63, 366, 367).
When 'An Exhibition of the Life and Work of Mayakovsky' took place in Moscow in February and in Leningrad in March, it:"The whole set of vindictive attacks on Mayakovsky, of all people, on the ground of insufficient closeness to and concern for the masses -arguments that read so absurdly at this distance of time, but which then momentarily hounded and isolated him -- bear the smell precisely of those methods. Mayakovsky was indirectly the victim of the same hands that later directly slew the great Soviet writer of the generation that preceded him, Gorky".
(Herbert Marshall (Ed.): 'Mayakovsky and his Poetry'; London; 1945 (hereafter listed as 'Herbert Marshall (Ed,): 1945'); p. 6).
"was boycotted by official and unofficial bodies, poets and critics; more and more bitter and scathing attacks were being made on him".
(Herbert Marshall (Ed.) (1965); p. 23).
RAPP's attacks on Mayakovsky continued -- intensified -- after his death:
"The cloud that had settled over Mayakovsky's reputation during the last years of his life was not dispelled by his senseless death".
(Edward J. Brown (Ed.) (1963): op. cit.; p. 369).
When Elsa Triolet attended the Writers' Congress in Moscow in 1934, she complained to 'one of these petty bureaucrats' about the neglect of Mayakovsky in the Soviet Union and was told:"They hounded him also after his death. His works only appeared in restricted editions, no new works published, no research, no production of his plays, his books and portraits were removed from libraries".
(Herbert Marshall (Ed.) (1965); p. 39).
"For a time after Mayakovsky's death, RAPP's clique, by exploiting his suicide, even succeeded in hindering the publication of his works, delaying the opening of his museum, and removing his name from the school curricula".
(Herbert Marshall (Ed.) (1945); p. 6).
On Stalin's initiative, as we shall see, RAPP was liquidated in April 1932."There's a cult of Mayakovsky, and we're fighting against that cult".
(Elsa Triolet: 'Mayakovsky: Poet of Russia', in: 'New Writing', New Series 3; London; 1.939; p. 222-23).
In 1935 Lilya and Osip Brik* wrote to Stalin to complain of the neglect of Mayakovsky in the Soviet Union. (Edward J. Brown (Ed.) (1973); p. 370).
Stalin replied promptly:
As a result of Stalin's initiative, Mayakovsky's prestige was immediately restored:"Mayakovsky was and remains the finest, most talented poet of our Soviet age. Indifference to his memory and his works is a crime".
(J. V. Stalin, in: A. D. P. Briggs: op. cit.; p. 121-22).
One final point: the Trotskyist revisionists who drove Mayakovsky to his death plead not guilty to the crime. The American Trotskyist Max Eastman*, for example, cannot deny Mayakovsky's talent nor the role of Averbakh and his gang in his persecution, so he simply inverts the truth by presenting Averbakh as:"At once things began to happen, Mayakovsky's ashes were re-interred in a place of honour alongside the remains of Gogol. Statues of the poet sprang up everywhere. His works were reissued and translated".
(D. P. Briggs: op. cit.; p. 122).
AESTHETICS IN THE SOVIET UNION (1932-1953)"the young adjutant of Stalin".
(Max Eastman: 'Artists in Uniform: A Study of Literature and Bureaucratism'; London; 1934; p. 35).
The Reformation of the Artistic Organisation (1932)
We have seen that in 1924 Stalin was the only Marxist-Leninist on the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This situation was rectified by a carefully planned strategy of cooperating with the less dangerous revisionists in the leadership in order to remove the more dangerous. As a result of this strategy, the Political Bureau elected after the 17th Congress of the CPSU in February 1934 consisted of (in alphabetical order):
Andrey Andreyev*;
Lazar Kaganovich*;
Mikhail Kalinin*;
Sergey Kirov*;
Stanislav Kosior*v
Valerian Kuibyshev*;
Vyacheslav Molotov*;
Grigory Ordzhonikidze*
Josef Stalin;
Kliment Voroshi1ov*.
(Leonard Schapiro: op. cit.; p. 607).
That is, it was composed of eight Marxist-Leninists and two still concealed revisionists. Thus, by the 1930s Marxist-Leninists had won majority of the seats on the Political Bureau.
It is customary for learned professors to present the defeated revisionists as 'brilliant intellectuals' and Stalin as 'a clod from the Caucasian backwoods'.
The objective history of Stalin's successful struggle against the Opposition belies such an analysis.
Having liquidated open revisionism in the political field, the Marxist-Leninists now in the leadership of the CPSU turned their attention to the development of a genuine proletarian culture.
The first step was to liquidate the existing cultural organisations under revisionist domination and to form new broad organisations in each field of culture -- organisations open to all cultural workers who supported Soviet power and socialist construction, with a Communist Party fraction in each to give Marxist Leninist leadership.
Thus, in April 1932, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party adopted a Decision 'On the Reformation of Literary-Artistic Organisations':
The fact that this radical decision was taken on Stalin's personal initiative was revealed by Lazar Kaganovich at the 17th Congress of the CPSU in January-February 1934:"The framework of the existing proletarian literary-artistic organisations . . . appears to be too narrow and to seriously restrict the scope of artistic creativity. . . . Consequently the Central Committee of the ACP (b) resolves:
1) to liquidate the association of proletarian writers .
2) to unite all writers supporting the platform of Soviet power and aspiring to participate in the building of socialism into one union of Soviet, socialist writers with a communist fraction in it;
3) to carry out an analogous changes with regard to the other forms of art".
(C. Vaughan James: op. cit. p. 120).
The American music critic Boris Schwarz* tells us that:"A group of Communist writers, taking advantage of RAPP as an organisational instrument, incorrectly utilised the power of their Communist influence on the literary front, and instead of unifying and organising around RAPP the broad masses of writers, held back and impeded the development of the writers' creative powers. . . .
It might have been possible to bring out a resolution on the tasks of the Communists in literature; it might have been possible to suggest that the RAPP people alter their policy. But this might have remained merely a good intention. Comrade Stalin posed the question differently: it is necessary, he said, to alter the situation in an organisational way".
(Lazar Kaganovich: Speech at 17th Congress, CPSU, in: Edward J. Brown (1935): op. cit.; p. 201).
The single organisation created by this decree in the field of literature was the Union of Soviet Writers, in the field of music the Union of Soviet Composers.". . . the Resolution . . . was received with widespread approval".
(Boris Schwarz: 'Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia: 1917-1970'; London; 1972; p. 110).
It remained to lay down the principles of aesthetics which Soviet artists would be expected to follow -- principles which came to be known as 'the method of socialist realism.
The Origin of the Term 'Socialist Realism
The first known use of the term 'socialist realism' was in an article in the 'Literary Gazette' in May 1932:
Five months later, in October 1932, at an informal meeting in Gorky's flat, Stalin gave his support to the term:"The basic method of Soviet literature is the method of socialist realism".
('Literary Gazette', 23 May 1932, in: Herman Ermolaev: 'Soviet Literary Theories: 1917-1934'; Berkeley (USA); 1963 (hereafter listed as 'Herman Ermolaev (1963)'); p. 144).
The Characteristics of Socialist Realism"If the artist is going to depict our life correctly, he cannot fail to observe and point out what is leading towards socialism. So this will be . . . socialist realism".
(Josef V... Stalin, in: C. Vaughan James: op. cit.; p. 86).
Realism, as we have said, is a trend in art which seeks to represent its subject faithfully and truthfully.
It must be distinguished from naturalism, which represents reality only superficially and statically. In fact, the world is in process of constant change, so that a work of art which fails to hint at the forces working beneath the surface of reality is not a realist, but a naturalist, work.
For example, Russia in 1907 lay under the 'Stolypin* Reaction': the organisations of the working class were being destroyed; the prisons were filled with revolutionaries; Black Hundred terror raged unchecked. On the surface, it was a picture of unrelieved, hopeless gloom for the mass of the people. Yet less than ten years later the whole rotten system of Tsarism had been swept away in the October Revolution. Consquently, a novel set in Russia in 1907 which failed to hint at the revolutionary social forces operating beneath the surface would be a work not of realism, but of naturalism.
Marxist-Leninists understand that monopoly capitalism, imperialism, is moribund capitalism, capitalism which has outlived its social usefulness to the mass of the people. Consequently, a 20th-century work of art which fails to suggest the underlying forces of the working class, of socialism, which will bring about the socialist revolution, is not a realist work: 20th century realism must be socialist realism.
The key word here is 'suggest': a socialist realist work of art must not give the impression of being propaganda.
As Engels expressed it in 1888:
Thus, the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Writers adopted at the lst All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers in 1934 declares:"The more the opinions of the author remain hidden, the better the work of art".
(Friedrich Engels: Letter to Margaret Harkness* (April 1888). in: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'On Literature and Art'; Moscow; 1976; p.91).
Socialist realist art does not exclude distortion and exaggeration, so long as this departure from naturalism assists in bringing out the truth about the subject. Thus, a caricature of Margaret Thatcher* showing her as a vulture with bloody talons would be much more realistic than a naturalistic portrait showing her as a sweet, silver-haired grandmother."Socialist realism demands from the author a true and historically concrete depiction of reality in its revolutionary development".
(Constitution of Union of Soviet Writers, in: C. Vaughan James: op. cit.; p. 88).
Socialist realist art is not, however, just a passive reflection of reality; it must play an active role in building socialist consciousness:
In Stalin's famous phrase, socialist realist artists are 'engineers of human souls':"The relationship between art and reality is twofold. . . . Socialist Realism demands a profound and true perception of reality and reflection of its chief and most progressive tendencies ; but it is itself a powerful weapon for changing reality. . . . Artistic truth facilitates the development of communist awareness, and education in the spirit of communism is possible only through a true reflection of life".
(Vaughan James: ibid.; p. 80).
Socialist realist art is, therefore, 'tendentious', ‘partisan'. Far from pretending to be neutral in the class struggle, it consciously sides with the working people:"Comrade Stalin has called our writers engineers of human souls".
(Andrey A. Zhdanov: 'Soviet Literature -- the Richest in Ideas,* the Most Advanced Literature' (hereafter listed as 'Andrey A. Zhdanov (1934)', in: H. G. Scott (Ed.): 'Problems of Soviet Literature'; London; 1935; p. 21).
Of course, all art is selective in its subject matter. There may be a millionaire who gives away all his money to the poor; but he would be so exceptional that a work of art with him as subject would give a completely false picture of millionaires. It would not be truly realist. True realism, socialist realism, requires typicality in its selection of subject matter:"Soviet literature is tendentious, for in an epoch of class struggle there is not and cannot be a literature which is . . . not tendentious"..
(Andrey A. Zhdanov (1934): ibid.; p. 21).
Romanticism is a form of art expressing intense emotion. However, in the majority of cases romanticism became linked with idealist soarings into metaphysics. Socialist realist art makes use of romanticism, but shorn of its metaphysical tendencies to give revolutionary romanticism:"Realism . . . implies, besides truth of detail, the truthful reproduction of typical characters under typical circumstances".
(Friedrich Engels: Letter to 'Margaret Harkness', (April 1888), in: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: op. cit.; p. 90).
We have seen that the form of a work of art is the manner or style in which the artist has presented the content of his work of art. Where the artist gives priority to form over content, we encounter a deviation from realism known as formalism:"Romanticism of the old type . . . depicted a non-existent life and non-existent heroes, leading the reader away from . . . real life into . . . a world of utopian dreams. Our literature . . . cannot be hostile to romanticism, but it must be romanticism of a new type, revolutionary romanticism."
(Andrey A. Zhdanov (1934): op. cit.; p. 21).
Finally, socialist realist art must be national in form, not cosmopolitan:
"Proletarian culture . . . is . . . national in form".
(Josef V. Stalin: 'The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East', in: 'Works', Volume 7; op. cit.; p. 140).
The First Congress of Soviet Writers (1934)"Internationalism in art does not spring from depletion and impoverishment of national art; on the contrary, internationalism grows where national culture flourishes. To forget this is . . . to become a cosmopolitan without a country.
Our internationalism . . . is therefore based on the enrichment of our national . . . culture, which we can share with other nations, and is not based on an impoverishment of our national art, blind imitation of foreign styles, and the eradication of all national characteristics".
(Andrey A. Zhdanov: p. 61, 63).
The First Congress of Soviet Writers, held in Moscow in August 1934 resolved that socialist realism:
Thus, by 1935 it could be reported truthfully:". . . become the officially sponsored method, first in literature and subsequently in the arts in general".
Vaughan James: op. cit.; p. 87).
However; revisionism in the arts had not been completely defeated. Papers were presented at the congress not only by the Marxist-Leninists Andrey Zhdanov and Maksim Gorky, but also by the still concealed revisionists Nikolay Bukharin, Karl Radek* and Aleksey Stetsky*:"The Union of Soviet Writers comprises all those writers, living and writing in Soviet Russia, who adhere to the platform of the Soviet Government, support Socialist construction and accept the method of Socialist Realism".
(Gleb Struve: op. cit.; p. 231).
Thus, the battle of ideas between Marxist-Leninists and revisionists in the field of the arts did not end in 1934, but continued."Bukharin . . . dismissed officially acclaimed 'agitational poets' as obsolete, and praised at length disfavoured lyrical poets, particularly the defiantly apolitical Pasternak*".
(Stephen F. Cohen: 'Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography: 1888-1938'; London; 1974; p, 356).
The Case of Dmitry Shostakovich (1936)
In November 1934 a new opera by Dmitry Shostakovich*, 'Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk’, had its premiere. The libretto was based on a short story by Nikolay Leskov* entitled 'Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District'. It tells the story of Katerina Ismailova, the wife of a provincial merchant, who has an affair with a clerk in her husband's office, poisons her father-in-law, then joins her lover in strangling her husband and, finally, murders her little nephew. For Leskov Katerina was a depraved criminal, but Shostakovich presented the story as a tribute to woman's liberation. While
The opera caused a sensation in the United States:"... for Leskov, Katerina was a squalid, selfish criminal — deserving of the condemnation which she encountered. Shostakovich, as he later said, intended his music to minimise her own guilt. 'The musical language of the whole opera is intended to exonerate Katerina1, he declared".
(Norman Kay: 'Shostakovich'; London; 1971; p. 26).
And the 'New York Sun' agreed:"A Western critic coined the word 'pornophony' to describe . . . the bedroom scene".
(Boris Schwarz: op. cit.; p. 371),
In January 1936, however,"Shostakovich is without doubt the foremost composer of pornographic music in the history of the opera".
(Boris Schwarz: ibid.; p. 120).
A few days later, 'Pravda' carried a leading article entitled 'Chaos instead of Music' which, as its title indicates, was strongly critical of the opera." . . . when Stalin finally saw 'Lady Macbeth;, he did not like it, . . . he walked out before it was over".
(Victor I. Serov: 'Dmitry Shostakovich: The Life and Background of a Soviet Composer'; New York; 1943; p. 220).
"For Stalin the opera was a painful experience".
(Robert Stradling: 'Shostakovich and the Soviet System', in: Christopher Norris (Ed.): 'Shostakovich: The Man and his Music'; London; 1982; p. 197).
Shostakovich himself insisted that the article
and the editor of his memoirs, Solomon Volkov, agrees that the article was"... actually expressed the opinion of Stalin".
(Solomon Volkov (Ed.): 'Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitry Shostakovich1; London; 1981; p. 113).
The article declared:"... dictated, in fact, by Stalin".
(Solomon Volkov: Introduction to: 'Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitry Shostakovich'; op. cit.; p. xxix).
A few days later, in February, 'Pravda' published another leading article, this time strongly critical of Shostakovich's ballet 'The Limpid Stream';"From the first moment, the listener is knocked over the head by an incoherent chaotic stream of sounds. The fragments of melody, the germs of musical phrases, are drowned in a sea of bangs, rasping noises and squeals. It is difficult to follow such 'music'; it is impossible to remember it. ... And so it goes on, almost right through the opera. Screams take the place of singing. If, once in a while, the composer finds his way on to a clear melodic path, he immediately dashes aside into the jungle of chaos, which sometimes becomes pure cacophony. . . . Expressiveness ... is replaced by a crazy rhythm. Musical noise is supposed to express passion.
All this is not because the composer lacks talent, or because he is incapable of expressing 'strong and simple emotions' in musical terms. This music is just deliberately written 'inside-out1, so that nothing should remind the listener of classical opera . . . and simple, easily accessible musical speech. . . . The danger of this 'Leftism' in music comes from .the same source as all 'Leftist' ugliness in painting, poetry, education and science. Petit-bourgeois 'innovation' produces divorce from real art, from real literature. , . .
Shostakovich, in reality, produces nothing but the crudest naturalism.. . . It is crude, primitive and vulgar".
(Leading Article, in: 'Pravda', 28 January 1936, in: Alexander Werth; 'Musical Uproar in Moscow'; London; 1949 (hereafter listed as 'Alexander Werth (1949)'; p. 48-49).
Shostakovich did not respond publicly:"The music is without character; it jingles; it means nothing".
(Leading Article, 'Pravda, 6 February 1936, in: Victor I. Serov: op. cit.; p. 208).
but he took note of the criticism:"Shostakovich . . . suffered in silence".
(Stanley Sadie (Ed.): 'New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians', Volume 17; London; 1980; p. 265).
Most Western musicologists agree with Peter Heyworth*, who holds that the Marxist-Leninist criticism of Shostakovich and other composers"In December 1936 he withdrew his 4th Symphony, . . . saying that he was dissatisfied with the finale".
(James Devlin; 'Shostakovich'; Sevenoaks; 1983; p. 9).
In fact, criticism of a work of art by the Marxist-Leninist Party of a socialist state is not criticism by 'politicians', but represents the collective opinion of the most advanced cultural leaders of the country:"... did immense damage to the cultural life of the Soviet Union".
(Peter Heyworth: 'Shostakovich without Ideology', in: Gervase Hughes S Herbert Van Thai (Eds.): 'The Music Lover's Companion'; London; 1971; p. 201).
And the view that the constructive Marxist-Leninist criticism was 'harmful' is discounted by the fact that in November 1937 the first performance took place of Shostakovich's 5th Symphony, inscribed:"Whereas Western criticism represents the subjective opinion of an individual critic, Soviet criticism is a collective opinion expressed in the words of an individual critic". (Boris Schwarz: op. cit.; p. 320).
"... 'Creative Reply of a Soviet Artist to Just Criticism'".
(Peter Ileyvorth: ibid.; p. 202).
RECORDING 4: EXCERPT: DMITRY SHOSTAKOVICH: SYMPHONY NO. 5.
Although this inscription did not originate with the composer,
And this new symphony, written in the light of the Marxist-Leninist criticism, proved to be his finest work to date:"... Shostakovich . . . accepted it".
(Stanley Sadie (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 17; p. 265).
"The Fifth ... to this day remains Shostakovich's most admired work".
(Solomon Volkov: op. cit.; p. xxxi).
"Its first movement is Shostakovich at his best . . . and shows a new maturity; this maturity reaches its greatest depth and power in the third movement, the now famous Largo. The entire symphony seems, indeed, to satisfy the demand of the Soviet people that their new music should be 'powerful and intelligible'. . . . Dmitry's triumph could be compared only with the comeback of an idol of the prize-ring".
(Victor I. Serov: op. cit.; p. 231-32).
"The 5th Symphony was received with unanimous praise and the critics rushed to acclaim it".
(James Devlin: op. cit.; p. 10).
"Shostakovich's 5th Symphony takes its place amongst the most profound and significant works of world symphonic music. At the same time, all its ethical and aesthetic elements, as well as the underlying idea and its embodiment in music, belong to Soviet art".
(David Rabinovich: 'Dmitry Shostakovich1; London; 1959; p. 50).
"It (the 5th Symphony — Ed.) proved to be Shostakovich's first fully mature work. Naturally enough, the Party's cultural officials were jubilant. Had not their criticism been admitted by its object as deserved? Better still, had it not yielded fruit in the shape of the finest score that Shostakovich had yet written?".
(Peter Heyworth: op. cit.; p. 202).