Author: Sydney Kightlinger

“Tell them straight out, you disagree with Stalin’s line, and name as many other who disagree as you can. They can’t arrest the whole Party, and by the time they have thousands of such cases on their hands, someone will think of calling an extraordinary Party congress and there will be a chance of overthrowing him. […] Of course it may mean the end for us, but it’s the only way to save the Party” (75).

The above quote is transmitted to Eugenia by Garey. He has been in prison longer than her, and he has hatched this idea that by sending the police on a wild-goose chase, it will save the Party. Obviously, this plan does not seem to be well developed. I think we could definitely talk about the absurdity of this plan, but I think a more compelling discussion would come from talking about Garey’s motives. Here is this man, a well established party member, who has been harassed, beaten, and imprisoned by the Party. But, he still wants to save it. Why? I think Eugenia’s rational for not doing what Garey suggested is very interesting since it also has to do with Party loyalty. What are we supposed to believe causes them to have faith things will get better and the Party will survive this terror?

“‘But has it even been proved that he’s Trotskyist?’ This naive question provoked an explosion of righteous anger: ‘Don’t you know he’s been arrested? Can you imagine anyone’s being arrested unless there’s something definite against him?'” (Ginzburg 9-10).

In this chapter, we are introduced to Ginzburg’s intellectual life in 1934 . We have talked about the Stalin’s cult of personality, but I feel like we haven’t talked about how there was only one cult allowed. Obviously, we all understand that Stalin was dictator, but I feel like we could talk about the damage done just by simply not supporting Stalin loud enough, not even challenging him. There are a couple great quotes in this chapter that talk about the importance of stroking Stalin’s ego. What I am wondering is what are your thought on the growing fear and paranoia? How does Ginzburg’s story fit into your understanding of the Stalinist Experience?

Last week read those harrowing accounts of collectivization in the countryside. We talked about how the account was 40 years removed from the sight of trauma; however, I think we ended up a little divided on if that family ended up having a decent life. Today, we got another account of the collectivization process; this time written in 1947. This is an overwhelmingly positive depiction of the success stories possible in the Soviet Union. However, we also read the stats report that argued in favor of the bleakness which grew in the 1930s Soviet Union. Below is a quote that I found completely bonkers in the Angelina text:

“My faith, and the faith of all our people, was not in vain. Stalin saved my little daughter and millions of other children in the USSR-and, believe me, not just in the USSR but in America, too-from the vicious enemy of humanity” (321).

What are we supposed think about all this information? Does this just play into Stalin’s cult of personality? Can these comments be sincere?

In the section we read from Behind the Urals, there seems to be a recurring theme: the work was hard, but we were hardier. Take for example this passage:

We both donned army shirts, padded and quilted cotton pants, similar jackets, heavy scarves, and then ragged sheepskin coats. We thrust our feet into good Russian ‘valinkis’ – felt boots coming up to the knee. We did not eat anything. We had nothing on hand except tea and a few potatoes …” (9).

Then we follow them to the factory where conditions are hazardous. This does not seem like a great place to be or great work to have to do. Compared to the work we read about on Tuesday, which locations seems better? Neither are ideal, but which experience seems the lesser of two evils? Can we really compare the two?

In Kamp, we are presented with two narratives of how the events of March 8, 1927 unfolded. We are told by Rahbar- oi Olimov that the council did not want to mandate unveiling, “They said that it should be voluntary. Some of the progressive women were the first to unveil. The progressive women unveiled on the eighth of March, 1927” (158). However, a little further down we are told that, “The need to unveil was emphasized in Party and government circles, where members were told that the women in their families would be called on to unveil on Inter-national Women’s Day, March 8, 1927” (165).

Maybe I am reading into this difference too much, but I believe the views of the government seem substantially different based on these two quotes? Moreover, I find this difference important in the conversation surrounds Rahbar-oi asking her husband for a second paranji and him denying her. I think what my question is what type of agency do veiled women have?

In Anderson, there is a brief mention on how the city developments where not necessarily for the people, but more for the bureaucracy: “Travel for ordinary citizens remained difficult throughout the decade. Instead, these buildings served travelling dignitaries with great style” (169). At first glance this struck me as odd, but I found even more striking as I read about the grandeur of the metro. The fact that no cost was spared seemed even more obtuse since “travel for ordinary citizens remained difficult.” The Soviet Union consistently struggled economically, so I find it irresponsible to make such decadent hallways and facades. From a public policy, not an artistic, viewpoint, does this metro represent life becoming better?

On pages 4 and 5, Bereford presents his thesis of “Soviet ideology, [as] an expression of an alternative definition of Soviet culturedness. Jazz enthusiasts […] believed that jazz music, and the leisure practices associated with it, was a “cultured” activity that could contribute to the construction of the New Soviet Person.” I think this is a fascinating argument. As we have learned in the first few weeks, Soviet art is required to satisfy many requirements to be deemed “good.” In both the United States and Soviet Union, Jazz was something of a rebellion. It does not follow many standard meters, riffing is encouraged, and it conveys a different type of message – a source of contention. Perhaps it is because I am uncultured, but I found todays music selections much more compelling to listen to than Shostakovich (please do not haunt me Shostakovich). Are any of you in the same position? With this reflection, do you think that has something to do with Soviet interest in Jazz? I feel like many of us probably listen to music at the days end; what are we looking for in music after a long day? Do we think that is what the Soviet citizen of 1930-something was looking for?

In the subheading “Cinema for the Millions,” we are provided the quote “every film must be useful, intelligible, and familiar to the millions” (215). This is stated in contrasted to a crisis the industry was facing due to genre/craft to focusing on the many. Additionally, we are provided context on how Soviet film was different (or needed to be different) than Hollywood. One of the most notable differences that I thought Kaganovsky was trying to draw out was the pro-Stalin/Soviet messaging that had to be present. While there were pro-USA musicals, the propaganda machines of each country seem to be much different. How do you think Soviet Realism is adapted to film? How is it differing from Hollywood? Are there elements you like?

The first scene we encounter is of young Pavel being expelled from school by the Priest. Then we are given a description of the everyday works that Pavel does to provide for himself. Slowly we are given more and more commentary on class struggles, especially after his friend Fyodor arrives. For obvious reasons it makes sense to have a growing discussion of class systems arrive as the Russian Civil War comes into frame, but what are moments you noticed class disparities prior to the war? I think the moment with the Priest and the three other boys to be the most notable: “I haven’t got any pockets,” and ran his hands down the sides of the trousers to prove it. “Ah-hah! So you say you’ve got no pockets, eh?” (388). I think this is an important moment for two reasons: it demonstrates that Pavel is poorer than the other children and it positions the reader to have a dislike of the Priest, a group later targeted by the Bolsheviks. What are your thoughts on this scene? Do you think it is pivotal in the discussion of classism?