Military Review

Stalin's relationship to the creative intelligentsia

48

When the conversation turns to creativity in the Stalinist era, the myth usually comes to the surface that Stalin did not favor great writers, and therefore "the creative process rested solely on socialist realism." It comes to the point that liberal myth-making gives rise to completely incomprehensible chimeras from the series "Under Stalin, all talented writers, poets, musicians and artists vegetated in the camps." Moreover, there are those who claim that the creative intelligentsia literally without exception hated the "father of nations."


But when it comes to facts, myths start to dissipate. During the Stalinist era, works were created that became recognized Russian, Soviet classics. There are also real masterpieces, to which many contemporary "free" artists grow and grow. The creations of Mikhail Bulgakov, Boris Pasternak, Dmitry Shostakovich, and many other outstanding masters are an example of this.

One of the myths is that the above-mentioned Boris Pasternak was an ardent opponent of Stalin.

This issue is being discussed on the Day TV channel. Historians Nikolai Sapelkin and Andrei Fursov talk about the life of a writer, using the thesis that Pasternak was in fact a Stalinist. Material:

48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 21 October 2020 05: 31
    -14 qualifying.
    Mmm .. Bulgakov, Pasternak and Shostakovich can be attributed to the era of Stalin, their personalities were formed in tsarist times.
    1. 9PA
      9PA 21 October 2020 05: 45
      15
      Personalities formed under the tsarist way of life were freely published under the bloody regime of the executioner with the most severe censorship. Hmm, an oxymoron?
    2. Far B
      Far B 21 October 2020 05: 49
      +5
      Parsnip? Perhaps, perhaps ... But the creative formation of Bulgakov and certainly Shostakovich (born 1906) certainly did not take place in tsarist times.
      1. Pessimist22
        Pessimist22 21 October 2020 05: 57
        -7
        Well, they are from the tsarist intelligentsia, being is consciousness.
        1. Far B
          Far B 21 October 2020 06: 02
          +7
          Well, they are from the tsarist intelligentsia, being is consciousness
          And what kind of "tsarist-intellectual being" determined their consciousness after 1917, I am ashamed to ask?
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 21 October 2020 08: 25
      +3
      Quote: Pessimist22
      Bulgakov, Pasternak and Shostakovich can be attributed to the era of Stalin, their personalities were formed in tsarist times.

      It doesn't matter what years a person was born. In your opinion, those who were born in Russia after December 1991 differ from the Soviet people. The logic is iron.
      1. your1970
        your1970 6 November 2020 14: 27
        0
        Quote: tihonmarine
        Quote: Pessimist22
        Bulgakov, Pasternak and Shostakovich can be attributed to the era of Stalin, their personalities were formed in tsarist times.

        It doesn't matter what years a person was born. In your opinion, those who were born in Russia after December 1991 differ from the Soviet people. The logic is iron.
        -In general, they are fundamentally different, the arms-legs-tail are the same, but in the heads ...
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 6 November 2020 15: 01
          0
          Quote: your1970
          -In general, they are fundamentally different, the arms-legs-tail are the same, but in their heads ..

          The head is like a log, you can make an icon, or you can make a club.
    4. EVDmitri
      EVDmitri 7 November 2020 12: 22
      0
      I'll tell you more! Stalin's personality was also formed in tsarist times! It turns out that he, too, cannot be counted in the era of Stalin!
  2. Far B
    Far B 21 October 2020 05: 47
    14
    And Akhmatova wrote praise about Stalin, and Rybakov was awarded the Stalin Prizes ... Yes, a lot of examples. And after Nikitka's report, unfortunately, many quickly changed their shoes. Someone because of excessive poetic impressionability (Akhmatova), someone from rather sycophantic, mercantile considerations (Rybakov). Few of those who have preserved their beliefs and views remain. The Russian intelligentsia, she is such ... "They asked Gumilyov:" Lev Nikolayevich, are you an intellectual? Gumilyov: "God save me! The current intelligentsia is such a spiritual sect. What is typical: they know nothing, they do not know how, but about everything are judged and absolutely do not accept dissent ... "
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 21 October 2020 08: 32
      +6
      Quote: Dalny V
      “They asked Gumilyov: - Lev Nikolayevich, are you an intellectual? Gumilyov: - God save me! The current intelligentsia is such a spiritual sect.

      The creative intelligentsia should live without separating from the people, from the country, and when it begins to preach "Western values" and hait its people, country and history, it is definitely a "spiritual sect", and now there are a lot of these sectarians. And it is precisely for this that the people do not like this "creative intelligentsia" (if not worse).
  3. bober1982
    bober1982 21 October 2020 07: 44
    0
    The intelligentsia cannot be classified as Soviet or Tsarist.
    The main principle of the intellectual is that in order to know the good, one must also fully know the sin, it was not my idea.
    That is, drunkenness, corruption, debauchery and other immoral behavior are in their blood. They have the same "masterpieces"
    Stalin fed all this public, put them at the service of the new government.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 21 October 2020 08: 42
      0
      Quote: bober1982
      Stalin fed all this public, put them at the service of the new government.

      Correct remark. And those who did not want to accept the new government, of course, like in any other country, received free housing with free meals and a number on their chest.
    2. Cowbra
      Cowbra 21 October 2020 09: 18
      0
      Perhaps you think, asked Izya sarcastically, that the actual builders of this temple are not pigs? Lord, and what pigs sometimes! Thief and scoundrel Benvenuto Cellini, unrestrained drunkard Hemingway, pederast Tchaikovsky, schizophrenic and Black Hundreds Dostoevsky, burglar and gallows Francois Villon ... Lord, decent people are rather rare among them!

      By the way, a quote from a rare drunkard Arkady Natanovich Strugatsky, despite the fact that he was OSNAZ
      1. depressant
        depressant 21 October 2020 20: 24
        +4
        That's how it happens ...
        Your comment, cowbra colleague, interested me greatly. I mean that part of it that concerns Arkady Natanovich Strugatsky's addiction to alcohol. Well, I went to the Internet, dug up a gigantic article in small print about the habits of Arkady Natanovich, yes, I was biased, used. Who wasn't biased then? People survived a terrible war. Do you know what unloaded PTSD is? This is when a terrible blow has been inflicted on the psyche, and the psychiatrist's tradition of unloading does not exist. The whole nation was hit, many abused alcohol, not everyone had the will to resist.
        Remember there was a terrorist attack on the Savelovsky metro? I saw these mountains of flowers - mountains! They, already withered, covering the long granite parapet, were not removed! And on the radio continuously: points of psychological relief are open, visit, even if you have not seen, but simply heard about the terrorist attack.
        Just heard ...
        I talked with the "Afghan" officers and those who fought in Chechnya. I saw what the war did to them.
        I somehow do not care the habits of Arkady Strugatsky. I don’t care about the "World of noon" by the Strugatsky brothers.
    3. Plastmaster
      Plastmaster 21 October 2020 18: 30
      +1
      So it’s easier, more beautiful to live with sin. And they can feel sorry for themselves, No one understands their subtle nature, spirituality. It's not at the factory to stand near the machine. Stalin somehow controlled them. Got it, .... Get it! And Khrushch dismissed them all. As a result, the current cultural offended, sit in hats, swing with silicone.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 21 October 2020 19: 02
        +3
        Quote: Plastmaster
        As a result, the current cultural offended

        They won't please.
        The tsar is a satrap, Stalin is a villain, the current government is a bloody hell, and so on ad infinitum.
        They, what they can - drink cognac and talk about spirituality, but there is no desire to fight their own passions.
  4. set of sets
    set of sets 21 October 2020 08: 42
    -3
    “Bulgakov hoped to publish“ Heart of a Dog ”in the almanac“ Nedra ”, but it was recommended not to even give the story to Glavlit for reading. Nikolai Angarsky, who liked the work, managed to pass it on to Lev Kamenev, however, he said that "this sharp pamphlet on the present should never be printed." In 1926, when a search was carried out in Bulgakov's apartment, the manuscripts of "The Heart of a Dog" were seized and returned to the author only after the petition of Maxim Gorky three years later.
    First published 1987.
    "The Master and Margarita" was written in 1940, and was released in the USSR only in 1973.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 21 October 2020 08: 56
      +2
      Bulgakov was persecuted by the literary brothers themselves, they literally banished him over him, any creative worker - if not a genius, then considers himself as such. Their orders are strict, in the sense that they can trample them quickly and without any power.
      1. set of sets
        set of sets 21 October 2020 09: 31
        -5
        Were they poisoned until 87?))
        Believe in all sorts of nonsense, but not the obvious
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 21 October 2020 09: 43
          0
          Quote: set of sets
          Were you poisoned until 87?

          "Heart of a Dog" is an anti-Soviet story and it would be foolish to publish this work at that time.
          I remembered well how the Komsomol members and communists laughed, they laughed when watching a movie in 1988, which also looked silly.
          Everything, it became clear, the Land of Soviets came full.
          1. set of sets
            set of sets 21 October 2020 09: 50
            -4
            So were they hounded or banned? Do you have a split? ))
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 21 October 2020 10: 01
              0
              Quote: set of sets
              So were they hounded or banned? Do you have a split?

              Mikhail Afanasyevich was Stalin's favorite, which saved him, but did not save him from burning envy and hatred on the part of his own brethren.
              In Soviet times, it was common to prohibit and issue the Stalin Prize at the same time. There are many examples.
              1. set of sets
                set of sets 22 October 2020 06: 43
                -4
                “In Soviet times, it was common to prohibit and issue the Stalin Prize at the same time. There are many examples.

                What speaks about the "adequacy" of the soviet power. They gave an award to people who were in exile.
                1. bober1982
                  bober1982 22 October 2020 07: 21
                  -2
                  Quote: set of sets
                  What speaks about the "adequacy" of the soviet power. Gave an award to people who were in exile

                  Not exactly as you claim.
                  Take D. Shostakovich, winner of 5 (five) Stalin prizes.
                  He received these most prestigious and grain awards, including in 1946 and 1950, and in 1948 he was accused by the Resolution of the Politburo, of bourgeois formalism and groveling before the West.
                  So, one did not interfere with the other.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 21 October 2020 19: 11
              0
              Quote: Plastmaster
              But the White Guard is so gorgeous! It is written just about the intelligentsia, which could only eat, drink, sniff and melody romances

              Well, how can it be so simplified, these are officers, cadets and, there is a creative intelligentsia? Or a modest Russian family?
              You don't really swell in 1918 in Kiev, by the way, Stalin's favorite play, apparently because there is no malicious irony, the life of Russian people is shown in a difficult period of anarchy in Kiev.
          3. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 22 October 2020 18: 57
            +1
            I didn’t hear that they were laughing. I heard that they were delighted, rejoiced - now, finally, what joy! True, I heard and understood this later wassat lol
            Quote: bober1982
            Quote: set of sets
            Were you poisoned until 87?

            "Heart of a Dog" is an anti-Soviet story and it would be foolish to publish this work at that time.
            I remembered well how the Komsomol members and communists laughed, they laughed when watching a movie in 1988, which also looked silly.
            Everything, it became clear, the Land of Soviets came full.
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 22 October 2020 19: 13
              0
              Quote: Reptiloid
              True

              After this film, Dima, (no one of course read the story itself), it became indecent to read Soviet newspapers, the main mouthpiece of official propaganda.
              "Do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner," one of the characters in the film impudently taught the Komsomol and Communists of the era of developed socialism.
              The most curious thing is that the film itself was filmed with Soviet money and passed the Soviet censorship.
              1. Reptiloid
                Reptiloid 22 October 2020 19: 48
                +1
                I heard from a relative that when the film came out, the book was not yet in stores. Then gradually began to appear in bookstores in small batches. Relatives did not buy in those days ... But in this century it is no longer interesting. Me, anyway ....
                1. bober1982
                  bober1982 22 October 2020 20: 04
                  0
                  Quote: Reptiloid
                  And in this century it is no longer interesting

                  Who is interested in what now?
                  I have Bulgakov, one of the most beloved writers, was once, he read, now I do not read anything from fiction at all, to nothing.
                  Sometimes, depending on my mood, I reread Bulgakov's White Guard and Bogomolov's Moment of Truth, and that's it.
                  By the way, so that you don't get scared, there is no whiteguard in Bulgakov's story itself, otherwise you might look at the title of the book and think that it is about evil whites, it is about something completely different.
                  1. Reptiloid
                    Reptiloid 22 October 2020 20: 13
                    +1
                    THE MOMENT OF TRUTH? It is very good. laughing good
                    However, I also watch the film from time to time.
    2. mat-vey
      mat-vey 21 October 2020 15: 35
      +3
      Quote: set of sets
      The Master and Margarita, written 1940

      Was Elena Sergeevna aware of it?
  5. Cowbra
    Cowbra 21 October 2020 09: 05
    0
    Yes, just if you remember. who finished off Mikhail Afanasyevich. Then you can remember Mayakovsky. And you can also recall Stalin's classics, and from whom he learned to give quotations ... Without giving a specific address, such as a page and a work, the author said so-and-so - there is a quote, and then think. Where.
    1. Nikolai Korovin
      Nikolai Korovin 21 October 2020 20: 53
      0
      Well, after all, Mayakovsky died in 1930. After that, a lot of things happened to Bulgakov - both positive and negative (this, of course, more).
  6. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 21 October 2020 09: 16
    +5
    Have you heard the expression "lousy intelligentsia"? By the way, this is a wise expression from the people! Life has repeatedly shown that there has been enough "lousy intelligentsia" in Russia at all times! This means, of course, not pubic lice, clothes, in the hair of the head! And the "lice" in the minds ... the modern version - "cockroaches in the head"! A feature of the Russian intelligentsia was the constant presence in its ranks of individuals with "lice in their heads"! Namely, among the "lousy" intellectuals the words: "homeland", patriotism "," sound nationalism "," Russian culture "and many other things that characterize Russia, the Russian nation, the Russian mentality have become abuse! A feature of the" lousy "intelligentsia is the habit of rejoicing in failures , the defeats of Russia ... to belittle the national and to praise the foreign!
    1. Nikolai Korovin
      Nikolai Korovin 21 October 2020 21: 02
      0
      It is interesting that the thesis about "lice" (to put it mildly) of the intelligentsia comes from V.I. Lenin. But what about the thesis about the defeat of the tsarist government in a world war and the further development of the imperialist war into a civil one? Here some discrepancy with your fair comment is noticeable - the author of the expression also seemed to be moving somewhere in the same direction as the other "intelligentsia" in your definition. Personally, this fact still does not fit well in my head. True, Vladimir Ilyich, as soon as the Bolsheviks took power, instantly changed his shoes in flight - from that moment, they say, we are defencists! Flexible, however ... And in general. There was, for example, a figure in the Amphitheaters. He publicly stated that he was proud that V.I. Lenin. Someone rummaged - yes, he did. He called it nothing other than "this prostitute of the Amphitheaters." However, I'm not sure that this is not a story - to admit, I have not read all 55 volumes and have not studied this issue closely. It's good if I've read 10 volumes in total, and even more on the diagonal.
  7. Konnick
    Konnick 21 October 2020 12: 18
    +6
    I can show Stalin's attitude to the creative intelligentsia using two examples. First, Alexandra Pakhmutova studied at the Central Music School since 1943, the students of this school were given food ration cards according to the standards for workers. The second example is the only ground construction site that was not frozen during the war except for the metro, was the construction of an institute named after the Gnesins sisters.
  8. mat-vey
    mat-vey 21 October 2020 15: 39
    +5
    A.P.Chekhov

    I don’t believe in our intelligentsia, hypocritical, false, hysterical, ill-bred, lying, I don’t even believe when she is suffering and complaining, because her oppressors come out of her bowels.
    1. Nikolai Korovin
      Nikolai Korovin 21 October 2020 21: 05
      +1
      Here it would be necessary to reveal who Anton Palych meant by this term. He knew little about the technical intelligentsia. However, the seeds of nihilism penetrated into her then. But still to a lesser extent than creative.
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 22 October 2020 14: 15
        +1
        Quote: Nikolai Korovin
        He did not know the technical intelligentsia well

        Probably because she was not so loud ...
  9. yehat2
    yehat2 21 October 2020 16: 43
    +4
    I would like to ask people who write that under Stalin the intelligentsia was rotten.
    Have you read, for example, Bulgakov Master and Margarita? How is the life of writers described there?
    Or have you read how much was spent on the state. prizes of the intelligentsia, though they didn’t go crazy doing whatever they could, but did something useful.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 21 October 2020 16: 54
      +3
      Quote: yehat2
      Have you read, for example, Bulgakov Master and Margarita? How is the life of writers described there?

      The most interesting thing is that the Bolsheviks gave the opportunity to the broad masses "you read" ...
      1. Nikolai Korovin
        Nikolai Korovin 21 October 2020 21: 07
        +1
        One should not over-idealize the levels of education provided by the educational program and the workers' school. But, of course, social elevators started working much more actively than in tsarist Russia ...
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 22 October 2020 14: 24
          0
          Quote: Nikolai Korovin
          One should not over-idealize the levels of education provided by the educational program and the workers' school.

          What are you trying to say? That almost one hundred percent of the population could finally get to know Pushkin and the same Bulgakov, is that something unnecessary?
          Quote: Nikolai Korovin
          But, of course, social elevators started working much more actively than in tsarist Russia ...

          What are the elevators with a general shortage of specialists - if only jet ...
          PySy my great-grandfather at 70 was taught to read and write, there was no need for any elevators, but what was going on in the world and the same Tolstoy could already read ... and his children and grandchildren all over the country dispersed and among them from beekeeper to worker ministry (which I will not say - I was not interested) ...
  10. depressant
    depressant 21 October 2020 21: 40
    +3
    In my humble understanding, in the post-revolutionary era there was a fierce struggle for the minds of the population of the USSR. The overwhelming majority of adults lived under the tsar, and under Soviet rule they learned to read and write - remember the grandiose program to eradicate illiteracy, when even old people sat down at their desks? The minds and hearts of these people, who learned to read, had to be won in every possible way - in order for a deep belief in the superiority of the new order to arise. Otherwise, it would fail.

    I guess it was not as easy as it seems to us now. People constantly compared: this is how it was under the tsar, but this is how it is now. Many, having learned to read, could think: great literature, painting, architecture, science, etc., were created in the tsarist time, but is there such a thing now? And isn't the Soviet system losing to the tsarist, if there is no such thing? And the conclusion could be asked that the absence, for example, of great art, I'm not talking about science, technology, etc., means that socialism is a worthless, stillborn political system, because it does not contribute to the rise of creative thought, the soaring of the spirit with the subsequent realization of takeoff and thought, for example, in the form of literary masterpieces, which can be borrowed from the library, or bought at an affordable price and read.

    I think Stalin understood this well, and for this reason he needed not so much propagandists - this task was successfully solved by periodicals (newspapers, magazines), but world-class geniuses, including in art, especially in literature and cinema. And when political power has a will and purpose, as well as a creatively gifted people, then geniuses will certainly appear. They also appeared. Because they were in demand by the era of creation.

    So let's look back at the past thirty years from this point of view. From 1991 to 2020.
    Have you looked around?
    No one needs our minds, hearts and faith.
  11. Old Bolshevik
    Old Bolshevik 22 October 2020 14: 18
    +3
    It was under Stalin that the great Soviet culture flourished: literature, music, ballet, fine arts.
    A characteristic feature of Stalin's culture is radiant optimism, ardent faith in one's own strength, in the victory of good over evil, the new over the old, in the superiority of the Soviet system, the cult of labor, heroism, friendship of peoples
    1. depressant
      depressant 22 October 2020 21: 07
      +2
      That's right, colleague Old Bolshevik!
      The country needed people, the authorities tried to reach out to everyone, to cheer everyone up. That is why outstanding composers have written magnificent songs performed by equally outstanding singers. Modern operas were sold out, new symphonies were performed, exhibition halls were filled with luminous paintings by Soviet artists, films of those years are still popular.
      Something went wrong?
      They say that under Stalin, the intelligentsia was driven to the camps. They drove. And then the "persecuted" were put at the head of scientific research institutes, and they became the founders of entire scientific schools. They also drove writers, but they still contrived to create masterpieces. In fact, the scientific and technical intelligentsia, as well as people of art under Stalin, were constantly one of the centers of attention of political power, which raised the importance of these people in their own eyes. Even the links to the camps, with which liberals are constantly trumpeting, raised the self-esteem of the intelligentsia to unprecedented heights - they are exiled, which means they understand the power, how important I am, significant, how important and significant my work is, and therefore, the influence on the political background of the country.
      And he, the political background, was new. New and unprecedented in the history of mankind. But precisely because he was new and unprecedented, he needed constant support not only by political methods, but also by a high measure of art of the highest standard, and not by cheap crafts.

      And then Stalin died. Instead of him came a hardened, worthless, uncultured Khrushchev, who does not understand anything in art and science, and even more so is not able to assess the influence of these factors on the political background of the country. And then this very scientific and technical intelligentsia, these capricious art workers with high self-esteem, "who understand a lot about themselves", spoiled by the attention of the authorities under Joseph Vissarionovich, kindled by it, very quickly and somehow especially offensively became simply not needed as world luminaries, but only in a utilitarian form - write more, make more films, the main thing in everything is the propaganda of "developed socialism" and the utopian idea that, they say, a little more, and we are in communism, and talent is not required. Art was lowered to the mundane everyday and propaganda level of newspapers and magazines. The winners were those who wrote a lot, mediocre, but at the same time followed the line of the party and government. Meanwhile, the creation of a masterpiece takes many years, as well as great mental and creative efforts.
      Brezhnev successfully continued and aggravated this Khrushchev tradition of pushing the intelligentsia into the background.
      Scientists and art workers of the intelligentsia cohorts formed by Stalin continued to create at the level of the best world examples, for they simply could not have been able to do otherwise, having passed Stalin's selection, but some gradually, others immediately came to power in opposition. Dissident sentiments have spread, which in one way or another have infected all workers of art and science. Some explicitly, some implicitly.
      This is how the country gradually lost its spiritual blood, its cultural and scientific intensity decreased. And since the population of the USSR got used to the fact that the intelligentsia expresses some deep truth in their activities, the dissident moods of the intelligentsia, spreading to the entire people, became another reason for the fall of the USSR.
      1. 1536
        1536 23 October 2020 19: 35
        +1
        "All - scientists, writers, artists - are insane in their own way. They need a special approach. Because they live their own, invented life." Stirlitz (t / f "Seventeen Moments of Spring")