The proclamation of the method of socialist realism as the main one in the new literature. The congress was preceded by a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of April 23, 1932 “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations”, which abolished many literary organizations - and above all the RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers) - and created a single Union of Writers. Its goal was declared "to unite all writers who support the platform of Soviet power and strive to participate in socialist construction ...". The convention was preceded by some liberal changes in the public atmosphere:
1) culture came to the fore as the most reliable bulwark in the fight against fascism. At this time, the famous article by M. Gorky “Who are you with, masters of culture?” Appeared, addressed to the writers of the world, to their mind and conscience: it formed the basis of many decisions of the congress of writers in defense of culture (Paris, 1935), in which B. L. Pasternak participated among others;
2) on the eve of the congress, many “frantic zealots”, carriers of communist swagger, real “demons” lost their influence - the persecutors of M. A. Bulgakov, A. P. Platonov, N. A. Klyuev, S. A. Klychkov, V. Ya. Shishkova and others, such pedlars of vigilance and a caste approach to culture as L. Averbakh, S. Rodov, G. Lelevich, O. Beskin and others. And vice versa, some former oppositionists were involved in active work in the field of culture ( N. I. Bukharin was appointed editor of Izvestia and even approved as a speaker on poetry at the First Congress instead of N. Aseev);
3) even before the congress, the idea was introduced - sometimes arbitrarily - of the writers about the greatest responsibility of creative achievements, their words for the people in the harsh, actually pre-war decade, when gunpowder smelled from all borders, about the inadmissibility of fruitless formalistic experiments, trickery, naturalistic everyday writing, and especially the preaching of human impotence, immorality, etc.
The congress of writers was opened on August 17, 1934 in the Hall of Columns in Moscow with an introductory speech by M. Gorky, in which the words were heard: "With pride and joy I open the first congress of writers in the history of the world." Subsequently, writing reports alternated - by M. Gorky himself, S. Ya. Marshak (on children's literature), A. N. Tolstoy (on dramaturgy) - and party functionaries N. I. Bukharin, K. B. Radek, speeches by A. A. Zhdanov, E. M. Yaroslavsky and others.
What and how did the writers themselves speak - not at all functionaries, not obsequious hasters in creativity - Yuri Olesha, Boris Pasternak, V. Lugovskoy? They talked about the sharply increased role of the people in the character, type of creativity, in the fate of writers.
“Do not break away from the masses ... Do not sacrifice your face for the sake of position ... With the enormous warmth that the people and the state surround us with, the danger of becoming a literary dignitary is too great. Away from this caress in the name of its direct sources, in the name of great, and efficient, and fruitful love for the motherland and the greatest people of today ”(B. Pasternak).
“We took and bit the topics. In many ways, we were moving along the top, not deep... This coincides with the drying up of the influx of fresh material, with the loss of an integral and dynamic sense of the world. We need to free up space in front of ourselves... Our goal is poetry, free in scope, poetry coming not from the elbow, but from the shoulder. Long live space! (V. Lugovskoy).
The positive side of the work of the congress was that although the names of M. Bulgakov, A. Platonov, O. Mandelstam, N. Klyuev were not mentioned, A. Bezymensky and D. Bedny were silently relegated to the background. And the frantic collectivization singer F. Panferov (with his multi-page "Bars") appeared as a phenomenon of a very low artistic culture.
Was the method (the principle of mastering the world, the original spiritual and moral position) of socialist realism to blame for many of the sins of literature?
When developing the definition of the method, the fact that it was necessary was clearly taken into account - this is already the spirit of the 30s, the spirit of a return to the national classics, to Russia, the motherland! - discard the aesthetic directives of L. D. Trotsky, the “demon of the revolution”, in the 20s. who ordered a break with the past, the denial of any continuity: “The revolution crossed time in half ... Time was cut into a living and a dead half, and it is necessary to choose a living one” (1923). It turns out that in the dead half of culture there is Pushkin, and Tolstoy, and all the literature of critical realism?!
Under these conditions, a kind of “aesthetic revolution” took place, a definition of the method and the main point, the requirement for its functioning, was found: “a true, historically concrete image of reality in its development.” A witness and participant in writers’ conversations (most often in the house of M. Gorky), chairman of the Organizing Committee of the First Congress, editor of Novy Mir, I. M. Gronsky, recalled the path to this definition:
“... I suggested calling (the creative method. - V.Ch.) proletarian socialist, and even better communist realism ... We will emphasize two points: firstly, the class, proletarian nature of Soviet literature, and secondly, we will indicate to literature the aim of the whole movement, of the whole struggle of the working class, is communism.
You have correctly pointed out the class, proletarian character of Soviet literature,” Stalin remarked in answering me, “and correctly named the goal of our entire struggle... Pointing out the ultimate goal of the struggle of the working class—communism—is also correct. But after all, we do not pose as a practical task the question of the transition from socialism to communism... By pointing to communism as a practical goal, you are getting ahead of yourself a little... How would you react if we call the creative method of Soviet literature and art socialist? realism? The advantage of such a definition is, firstly, brevity (only two words), secondly, clarity and, thirdly, an indication of continuity in the development of literature.
Socialist realism is an accurate reflection of the era of the 30s. as the pre-war era, which required the utmost solidity, the absence of strife and even disputes, an ascetic era, in a certain sense simplified, but extremely integral, hostile to individualism, immorality, anti-patriotism. Having received a retroactive effect, that is, being extended to the story "Mother" by Gorky, to the Soviet classics of the 20s, he gained powerful support, persuasiveness. But called upon to be "responsible" for the ideologically depleted, normative literature of the 1940s and 1950s, almost for the entire "mass culture", he became the object of feuilleton-cheeky irony.
Ilya Ehrenburg, recalling (thirty years later) those days, admitted that he was preparing for the congress like a girl for the first ball. This is the skeptic Ehrenburg. So what to say about others! Ehrenburg ended his memoirs about this "first ball" in this way: They chose the board, approved the charter. Gorky declared the congress closed. The next day, janitors with brooms raged at the entrance to the Hall of Columns. The holiday is over. The meaning of this conclusion is clear: the holiday has died down, harsh everyday life has begun. But whatever you say, it was still a holiday!
In fact, however, the holiday was completely fake. And it was clear to many of its participants even then. In the book Power and the Artistic Intelligentsia, to which I have already referred more than once, among the many documents covering the course of the congress, the following is also published:
"Special message of the secret political department of the GUGB of the NKVD of the USSR
"On the course of the All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers. Writers' responses to the work of the Congress".
Here are just a few of those responses.
Everything was so smooth that I was overcome by a simple manic desire to take a piece of shit or dead fish and throw it at the presidium of the congress.
This is at the level of emotions.
And the very essence of what was happening was expressed by one of the oldest Russian writers of that time - A. Novikov-Priboy:
There comes a period of final bureaucratization of literature. The main goal of this pompous state event was to seize the disobedient freelance writers, to nationalize literature, to make it manageable.
It was not possible to completely cope with this task immediately. It took years, even decades. Stalin, who once threw the famous slogan - "We have no irreplaceable ones", when D.A. Polikarpov, a party functionary appointed to lead the writers, complained to him how difficult it was to work with them (one drinks, the other is a womanizer, the third fancies himself a genius and does not obey any orders), replied:
"At the moment, Comrade Polikarpov, we cannot provide you with other writers. If you want to work, work with these."
But none other than he himself created this situation, in which the promise of Colonel Skalozub "to give the intellectuals" in Voltaire "sergeant major" came true:
He will build you in three lines,
And if you squeak, it will instantly calm you down! This same Polikarpov was appointed to the role of such a sergeant major. And can he be blamed for coping with this role in accordance with his ideas about how it should be performed:
"Polikarpov established a regime of terror. Everything that does not coincide with his taste is mercilessly cut, removed, forbidden." Polikarpov behaves especially outrageously at the party bureau of the Union of Soviet Writers, at party meetings, at meetings of the board of the SSP. Everywhere - his word, his tone are indisputable. Personal taste, personal evaluation of works become the law. Here's yesterday. Polikarpov holds board meetings with the asset. The nomination of works for the Stalin Prizes is being discussed. Polikarpov prepared a list in advance. If the speakers do not say what he wants, he begins to shout, interrupt them with the rudest remarks, deprive him of the word. Outraged Tvardovsky, whom Polikarpov allowed himself to shout at as a boy, leaves the meeting. Polikarpov interrupts the debate when he pleases, shouting, poking at writers known throughout the country as a gendarme. No, really, there was no such situation even under the notorious Averbakh! front. History of political censorship 1932-1946. Collection of documents ". M., 1994. P. 186.)
Polikarpov, who in his zeal surpassed the "notorious Averbakh", Stalin nevertheless removed from the leadership of the writers. He understood that in such a delicate and complex matter as fiction, there must be irreplaceable people. And it is necessary to handle these "irreplaceable" "as far as possible" delicately. Stalin acted cautiously, at first he tried not to irritate anyone in particular. Therefore, "proletarianism" for some time still retained its significance. Some Chumandrin, now unknown to anyone, sat in the presidium of the congress, and M.A. Bulgakov did not even receive a guest ticket. But next to Chumandrin on the podium were B.L. Pasternak and A.N. Tolstoy. Stalin still needed "irreplaceable" ones, and it never occurred to him that anyone could be appointed the country's chief writer - even Chumandrin. But - the process has begun. And thirty years later, it was already easy to appoint any party functionary as the main writer of the country. Which is what was done.
When Georgy Mokeevich Markov suddenly felt unwell at some writing congress, Hero of the Soviet Union V. Karpov quickly jumped up from the presidium to the podium and, delicately taking Georgy Mokeevich aside, took his place and read the report to the end, thereby asserting himself as the new, next head writer. And no one protested "not even surprised" But I got carried away and ran far ahead.
M. Gorky
M. Gorky. Collected works in thirty volumes M., GIHL, 1953 Volume 27. Articles, reports, speeches, greetings (1933-1936) So - the first general congress of writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and regions finished its work. This work turned out to be so significant and varied that now, in a concluding remark, I can only outwardly outline its deep meaning, I can note only the most significant of what it discovered. Before the congress and at the beginning of it, some and even, it seems, many writers did not understand the meaning of organizing the congress. "What is he for?" these people asked. These are very strange people, and at the congress they were rightly called indifferent. Their eyes see that in our reality something still remains “as it was,” but their indifference does not allow them to realize that it remains only because the proletariat, the master of the country, does not have enough time to finally destroy, destroy these remnants. These people are quite satisfied with what has already been done, which has helped them move forward into comfortable positions, and which has strengthened their natural indifference of individualists. They do not understand that we are all very small people in comparison with the great things that are happening in the world, they do not understand that we live and work at the beginning of the first act of the last tragedy of working humanity. They have become accustomed to living without a sense of pride in the meaning of personal existence and are only concerned about preserving the dull lordship, the dull radiance of their small, poorly polished talents. They do not understand that the meaning of personal existence is to deepen and expand the meaning of existence of the many millions of working people. But these vast masses sent their representatives to the congress: workers in various fields of production, inventors, collective farmers, pioneers. The whole country stood up before the writers of the Union of Socialist Soviets, stood up and made high demands on them - for their talents, for their work. These people are the great present and future of the Land of the Soviets. Interrupting our conversations, Blinding with the brilliance of unseen deeds, They brought their victories - Bread, planes, metal - themselves, - They brought themselves as a theme, As their work, love, life. And each of them sounded like a poem, Because Bolshevism thundered in each. Raw, hastily made lines of poetry Viktor Gusev correctly note the meaning of the event: once again the thunder of Bolshevism, the fundamental reformer of the world and the harbinger of terrible events throughout the world, thundered triumphantly. Where do I see the victory of Bolshevism at the Congress of Writers? In the fact that those of them who were considered non-Party, "waverers", admitted - with sincerity, in the fullness of which I do not dare to doubt - recognized Bolshevism as the only militant guiding idea in creativity, in word painting. I highly value this victory, because I, a writer, know from my own experience how arbitrary the thought and feeling of a writer who tries to find freedom of creativity outside the strict instructions of history, outside its basic, organizing idea. Deviations from the mathematically straight line worked out by the bloody history of working mankind and brightly illuminated by the doctrine that establishes that the world can be changed only by the proletariat and only through a revolutionary blow, and then through the socialist organized labor of workers and peasants - deviations from the mathematically straight line are explained by that our emotions are older than our intellect, by the fact that there is much inherited in our emotions and this inheritance is hostilely contrary to the testimony of reason. We were born in a class society, where everyone needs to defend themselves against everyone, and many enter a classless society as people from whom trust in each other has been etched out, in whom the sense of respect and love for working humanity, the creator of all values, has been killed by the age-old struggle for a convenient place in life. . We lack the sincerity necessary for self-criticism, we show too much petty bourgeois anger when we criticize each other. It still seems to us that we are criticizing a competitor for our piece of bread, and not a comrade in work, which is taking on an ever deeper significance as the stimulus of all the best revolutionary forces in the world. We writers, workers in the art of the most individual, are mistaken in considering our experience as the sole property, while it is the suggestion of reality and - in the past - a very heavy gift from it. In the past, comrades, for we all have already seen and see that the new reality, created by the Bolshevik Party, embodying the mind and will of the masses, the new reality offers us a wonderful gift, an unprecedented gift of the intellectual flowering of many millions of working people. I will recall a wonderful speech Vsevolod Ivanov, this speech should remain in our memory as an example of sincere self-criticism of a politically minded artist. The speeches deserve the same attention. Y. Olesha, L. Seifullina and many others. About two years ago Joseph Stalin, Concerned about raising the quality of literature, he told communist writers: "Learn to write from non-party people." Without speaking of whether the Communists learned anything from the non-Party artists, I must say that the non-Party did not learn badly from the proletariat how to think. (Applause.) Once, in a fit of hungover pessimism, Leonid Andreev said: “A confectioner is happier than a writer, he knows that children and young ladies love cake. And a writer is a bad person who does a good thing, not knowing for whom and doubting that this business is generally necessary That is why most writers have no desire to please someone, and want to offend everyone. The writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics see for whom they are working. The reader himself comes to them, the reader calls them "engineers of souls" and demands that they organize in simple words in good, truthful images of his sensations, feelings, thoughts, his heroic work. There has never been such a close, direct unity between the reader and the writer, and this fact is the difficulty that we must overcome, but this fact is our happiness, which we have not yet learned to appreciate. Just as the cultures of our fraternal republics, which are national in form, remain and must be socialist in essence, our creativity must remain individual in form and be socialist-Leninist in the sense of its fundamental, guiding idea. This meaning is the liberation of people from the remnants of the past, from the suggestion of a criminal class history that distorts thought and feeling, a history that educates working people as slaves, intellectuals as double-minded or indifferent, anarchists or renegades, skeptics and critics or conciliators of the irreconcilable . In the end, the congress gives the right to hope that from now on the concept of "non-Party writer" will remain only a formal concept, while inwardly each of us will feel like a real member of the Leninist Party, which so beautifully and timely proved its confidence in the honor and work of non-Party writers by the permission of the All-Union Congress. At this congress we issued large bills of exchange to the multi-million reader and the government, and, of course, now we are obliged to pay the bills with honest, good work. We will do this if we do not forget what our readers, including our children, have suggested to us, if we do not forget how enormous the importance of literature in our country is, what variously high demands are placed on us. We will not forget this if we immediately exterminate in our midst all remnants of group relations, relations that are ridiculously and disgustingly similar to the struggle of the Moscow boyars for parochialism - for places in the boyar duma and at the banquets of the tsar closer to him. We should well remember the smart words of Comrade Seifullina, who rightly said, That "we were too soon and willingly made writers." And do not forget the instructions of a friend Nakoryakov, that in the years 1928-1931 we produced 75 per cent of the books that did not have the right to second editions, that is, very bad books. “You understand how much we have published superfluous, how much extra costs we have made, not only material, but also spiritual costs of our people, our creators of socialism, who read a gray, bad, and sometimes hacky book. This is not only a mistake of the writing team, but it is also one of the worst mistakes in publishing." I consider the end of Comrade Nakoryakov's last sentence to be too soft and amiable. With everything that has been said, I addressed the writers of the entire congress and, therefore, the representatives of the fraternal republics. I have no reason or desire to single them out in a special place, because they work not only each for their own people, but each for all the peoples of the Union of Socialist Republics and autonomous regions. History places on them the same responsibility for their work as on the Russians. Due to lack of time, I read little of the books written by the writers of the Union republics, but even the little that I have read inspires me with firm confidence that we will soon receive from them a book remarkable for the novelty of the material and the power of the image. Let me remind you that the number of people does not affect the quality of talent. Little Norway created huge figures of Hamsun, Ibsen. The Jews recently died the almost brilliant poet Bialik and had an exceptionally talented satirist and humorist Sholom Aleichem, the Latvians created a powerful poet Rainis, Finland - Eino-Leino - there is no such small country that would not give great artists of the word. I have named only the largest and far from all, and I have named writers who were born in the conditions of a capitalist society. In the republics of peoples that are fraternal to us, writers are born from the proletariat, and by the example of our country we see what talented children the proletariat has created in a short time and how continuously it creates them. But I am addressing friendly advice, which can be understood as a request, to representatives of the nationalities of the Caucasus and Central Asia. On me, and - I know - not only on me, the ashug Suleiman Stalsky. I saw how this old man, illiterate but wise, sitting in the podium, whispered, creating his poems, then he, Homer of the 20th century, amazingly read them. (Applause.) Take care of people who are able to create such pearls of poetry as Suleiman creates. I repeat: the beginning of the art of the word is in folklore. Collect your folklore, learn from it, process it. He gives a lot of material to you and to us, poets and prose writers of the Union. The better we know the past, the easier, the more deeply and joyfully we will understand the great significance of the present we are creating. The speeches at the meetings of the congress and conversations outside the meeting room revealed the unity of our feelings and desires, the unity of purposefulness, and revealed our unacceptably little acquaintance with art and, in general, with the culture of the fraternal republics. If we do not want the fire that has flared up at the congress to be extinguished, we must take all measures to make it flare up even brighter. It is necessary to begin mutual and broad acquaintance with the cultures of the fraternal republics. To begin with, it would be necessary to organize an "All-Union Theater" in Moscow, which would show on stage, in drama and comedy, the life and way of life of the national republics in their historical past and heroic present. (Applause.) Further: it is necessary to publish in Russian collections of current prose and poetry of the national republics and regions, in good translations. (Applause.) Literature for children also needs to be translated. The writers and scholars of the national republics must write the histories of their countries and states, stories that would acquaint the peoples of all the republics with each other. These histories of the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will serve as a very good means of mutual understanding and internal, ideological cohesion of all the people of the seven republics. This mutual understanding, this unity of forces is necessary not only for all the people of the Union of Republics, they are necessary as a lesson and an example for the entire working people of the earth, against whom their old enemy, capitalism, is organized under a new guise - fascism. A good, practical method for elucidating the cultural ties and business interdependencies of the Union of our republics can be the collective work on the creation of the book "Cases and People of Two Five-Year Plans." This book should show the labor force of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the form of essays and stories the results of their work and the facts of the cultural and educational influence of labor on people, on the growth of reason, etc. the will of a few, to liberate them from the narrow boundaries of the petty-bourgeois individualism of owners, to educate a new, socialist individuality under the conditions of collective labor, to show the spiral along which we are moving forward and ascending ever higher. Participation in this work is absolutely essential for writers of all fraternal republics and all regions. We are still at that stage of development when we must convince ourselves of our cultural growth. Of all that was said at the congress, the most significant and important thing is that for the first time many young writers felt their importance and responsibility to the country and realized their insufficient preparation for work. Collective work on the creation of books covering the processes of grandiose labor that is changing the world and people will serve us as an excellent means of self-education and self-strengthening. In the absence of serious, philosophical criticism, so sadly shown by the fact of the muteness of professional critics at the congress, we must ourselves take up self-criticism not in words, but in deeds, directly in the work on the material. On the method of collective labor of writers, comrade Ehrenburg was skeptical, fearing that the method of such work could harmfully limit the development of the individual, abilities of the work unit. Comrades Vsevolod Ivanov and Lidia Seifullina, by objecting to him, it seems to me, dispelled his fears. It seems to Comrade Ehrenburg that the method of collective work is the method of brigade work. These techniques have no other resemblance to each other, except for the physical: in both cases, groups, collectives work. But the team works with reinforced concrete, wood, metal, etc., always with a definitely uniform material that needs to be given a predetermined shape. In the brigade, individuality can reveal itself only by the strength of the tension of its work. Collective work on the material of social phenomena, work on reflection, depiction of the processes of life - among which, in particular, the actions of shock brigades have their place - this is work on infinitely diverse facts, and each individual unit, each writer has the right to choose for himself this or that series of facts according to his gravitation, his interests and abilities. The collective work of writers on the phenomena of life in the past and present for the most vivid illumination of the paths to the future bears some resemblance to the work of laboratories scientifically and experimentally investigating certain phenomena of organic life. It is known that the basis of any method is an experiment - research, study - and this method, in turn, indicates further paths of study. I have the courage to think that it is the method of collective work with material that will help us best to understand what socialist realism should be. Comrades, in our country the logic of actions overtakes the logic of concepts, that's what we must feel. My confidence that this method of collective creativity can produce completely original, unprecedentedly interesting books is such that I take the liberty of offering such work to our guests, excellent masters of European literature. (Applause.) Will they not try to give a book that would depict the day of the bourgeois world? I mean any day: September 25th, October 7th or December 15th, it doesn't matter. We need to take a weekday the way it was reflected in the world press on its pages. It is necessary to show all the motley chaos of modern life in Paris and Grenoble, in London and Shanghai, in San Francisco, Geneva, Rome, Dublin, etc., etc., in cities, villages, on water and on land. We must give the holidays of the rich and the suicides of the poor, the meetings of the academies, learned societies and the facts of wild illiteracy, superstitions, crimes reflected in the chronicle of newspapers, the facts of the refinement of refined culture, the strikes of workers, anecdotes and everyday dramas - impudent cries of luxury, exploits of swindlers, lies of political leaders, - it is necessary, I repeat, to give an ordinary, everyday day with all the crazy, fantastic diversity of its phenomena. It is the work of scissors much more than the work of a pen. Of course comments are inevitable, but I think they should be as brief as they are brilliant. But facts must be commented on by facts, and on these tatters, on this rag of the day, the commentary of a writer must shine like a spark kindling the flame of thought. In general, it is necessary to show the "artistic" creativity of history within one day. No one has ever done this, but it should! And if a group of our guests undertake such work, they, of course, will give the world something unprecedented, unusually interesting, dazzlingly bright and deeply instructive. (Applause.) The organizing idea of fascism is the racial theory, a theory that erects the Germanic, Romanesque, Latin or Anglo-Saxon race as the only force supposedly capable of continuing the further development of culture, a "purebred" racial culture based, as it is known, on a merciless and increasingly cynical exploitation of the vast majority of people by a numerically insignificant minority. This numerically insignificant minority is also insignificant in terms of their intellectual power, wasted on inventing methods of exploiting working people and the treasures of nature belonging to working people. Of all the talents of capitalism, which once played a positive role as an organizer of civilization and material culture, modern capitalism has retained only a mystical confidence in its right to rule over the proletariat and peasantry. But against this mysticism of the capitalists, history has put forward a real fact - the strength of the revolutionary proletariat, organized by the invincible and inextinguishable, historically justified, formidable truth of the doctrine Marx-- Lenin, brought forward the fact of a "united front" in France and an even more physically tangible fact - the union of the proletariat of the Soviet Socialist Republics. In the face of the force of these facts, the poisonous, but light and thin fog of fascism will inevitably and soon dissipate. This fog, as we see, poisons and seduces only adventurers, only unprincipled, indifferent people, people for whom "everything is all the same" and who do not care who to kill, people who are products of the degeneration of bourgeois society and mercenaries of capitalism for its most vile, vile and bloody deeds. The main strength of the feudal lords of capitalism is the weapons that the working class manufactures for them—guns, machine guns, cannons, poison gases, and everything else that at any moment can be and is being used by the capitalists against the workers. But the time is not far off when the revolutionary legal consciousness of the workers will destroy the mysticism of the capitalists. However, they are preparing a new worldwide slaughter, organizing the mass extermination of the proletarians of the whole world on the fields of national-capitalist battles, the purpose of which is to profit, enslave small nationalities, turn them into slaves of Africa - half-starved animals who are obliged to work hard labor and buy bad, rotten goods. only for the kings of industry to accumulate fat gold - the curse of the working people - gold, with insignificant grains of which the capitalists pay the workers for forging chains for themselves, for making weapons against themselves. It is in the face of such acute class relations that our All-Union Congress worked, and on the eve of what a catastrophe we writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will continue our work! In this work there cannot be and should not be any place for personal trifles. Revolutionary internationalism against bourgeois nationalism, racism, fascism—that is the historical meaning of our day. What we can do? We have already done something. We are doing a good job of uniting all the forces of the radical, anti-fascist intelligentsia, and we are calling to life proletarian, revolutionary literature in all countries of the world. In our midst there are representatives of almost all the literatures of Europe. The magnet that attracted them to our country is not only the wise work of the Party, the mind of the country, the heroic energy of the proletariat of the republics, but also our work. To some extent, every writer is the leader of his readers - I think this can be said. Roman Rolland, André Gide have the most legitimate right to call themselves "engineers of souls". Jean Richard Block, André Malraux, Plivier, Aragon, Toller, Becher, Some- I will not list them all - these are the bright names of exceptionally talented people, and all of these are stern judges of the bourgeoisie of their countries, all these are people who know how to hate, but also know how to love. (Applause.) We did not know how to invite many more, who also possess in all their strength the wonderful human gift of love and hatred, we did not know how to invite them, and this is our considerable fault before them. But I am sure that the second congress of Soviet writers will be adorned by dozens of writers from the West and the East, writers from China and India, and there is no doubt that we are on the eve of uniting around the Third International all the best and most honest people of art, science and technology. (Applause.) A small and - for me personally - not entirely clear disagreement arose between foreigners and us on the question of assessing the position of the individual in a classless society ... This question is predominantly academic, philosophical, and, of course, it could not be well covered on one or two meetings or in one conversation ... The essence of the matter is that in Europe and everywhere in the world a writer who cherishes centuries-old cultural conquests and who sees that in the eyes of the capitalist bourgeoisie these cultural conquests have lost their value, that any day a book any honest writer can be burned publicly - in Europe, the writer feels more and more strongly the pain of the oppression of the bourgeoisie, fears the revival of medieval barbarism, which, probably, would not exclude the institution of the Inquisition for heretical thinkers. In Europe, the bourgeoisie and its governments are increasingly hostile to the honest writer. We have no bourgeoisie, and our government is our teachers and our comrades, comrades in the full sense of the word. The conditions of the moment sometimes call for protest against the willfulness of individualistic thought, but the country and the government are deeply interested in the need for the free growth of the individual and provide all the means for this, as far as possible in the conditions of a country that is forced to spend a huge amount of money in self-defense against the new barbarian - the European bourgeoisie, armed from teeth to toes. Our congress worked on the high notes of a sincere passion for our art and under the slogan: Raise the quality of work! Needless to say, the more perfect the weapon, the better it ensures victory. The book is the most important and powerful tool of socialist culture. Books of high quality are demanded by the proletariat, our main, multi-million reader; books of high quality are indispensable for hundreds of novice writers who enter literature from among the proletariat, from factories and collective farms in all the republics and regions of our country. We must carefully, continuously and lovingly help these young people on the difficult path they have chosen, but, as Seifullina rightly said, we should not rush to "make them writers" and we should remember Comrade Nakoryakoz's instruction about the fruitless, unprofitable waste of people's funds for the production of book defects. For this marriage, we must be responsible collectively. All our playwrights spoke passionately and convincingly about the need to improve the quality of our dramaturgy. I am sure that the organization of the "All-Union Theater" and the "Theatre of Classics" will greatly help us to assimilate the high technique of ancient and medieval playwrights, and the dramaturgy of the fraternal republics will expand the limits of the subject, point out new original conflicts. in the report Bukharin There is one point that requires an objection. Speaking of poetry Mayakovsky, N. I. Bukharin did not note the harmful - in my opinion - "hyperbolism" characteristic of this very influential and original poet. As an example of such an influence, I take the poems of a very gifted poet Prokofiev,- it seems that he edited the novel Molchanova"The Peasant" is a novel, which was mentioned in "Literary Amusements", in which the fist-like peasant was glorified as our modern Mikula Selyaninovich. Prokofiev depicts in verse a certain Pavel Gromov, a "great hero", also Mikula. Pavel Gromov is an amazing monster. The world song is sung about him, How he walked, fierce with sword and fire. He -- shoulders that doors- thundered on the Don. And the dust from the campaign eclipsed the moon. He -- mouth like a cellar- went through everything. So the wolf does not pass and the lynx does not run. He -- cheekbones like boards and a mouth like a coffin- He was a complete master of clearings and paths. In another poem, Prokofiev depicts such a terrible one: The eldest son knows no equal, Legs-- logs, chest-- mountain. He is alone stands like a laurel Along the paved courtyard. ...Him mustache-- what reins, Beard-- what a harrow....Seven desired loves suddenly. What a goat! By the way, a lavra is a rich, crowded monastery, almost a town, like, for example, the Kyiv and Trinity-Sergius lavras. This is what Mayakovsky's hyperbolism leads to! In Prokofiev, it seems to be complicated by hyperbolism Klyuev, singer of the mystical essence of the peasantry and even more mystical "power of the earth." I do not deny Prokofiev's giftedness; his desire for epic imagery is even commendable. However, the desire for epic requires knowledge of the epic, and on the way to it it is no longer possible to write such verses: Glory flew across the fields, Thunderbolt owned fate. If the storms went to the right - Thunderbolt went to the left. Storms again breathed anger, Strong cold of all latitudes (?). If the storms went to the left, Thunderbolt - on the contrary. I don't think this is epic anymore. It looks like a rehash of an old poem that wanted to be funny: Two friends lived in Kyiv - Amazing people. The first homeland was from the south, And the second - on the contrary. The first was a terrible glutton, And the second was an idiot, The first died of constipation, And the second - on the contrary. Our Soviet poetry in the short period of its life has achieved very significant successes, but just like prose, it contains a very fair amount of empty flowers, chaff and straw. In the struggle for the high quality of prose and poetry, we must update and deepen the themes, the purity and sonority of the language. History has pushed us forward as builders of a new culture, and this obliges us to strive even further forward and higher, so that the whole world of working people can see us and hear our voices. The world would very well and gratefully hear the voices of poets if they, together with musicians, tried to create new songs, new ones that the world does not have, but which it must have. It is far from true that the melodies of the old songs of Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians are full of grief and sadness, probably the Tatars and Armenians also have songs of marching, round dance, comic, dance, labor rhythms, but I only speak about what I know. Old Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian songs have an endless variety of musicality, and our poets should familiarize themselves with such collections of songs as, for example, "Velikoross" Shane, like a compilation Drahomanov and Kulish and others of this type. I am sure that such an acquaintance would serve as a source of inspiration for poets and musicians and that the working people would receive beautiful new songs - a gift they have long deserved. It must be taken into account that an old melody, even slightly changed, but filled with new words, creates a song that will be learned easily and quickly. You just need to understand the meaning of the rhythm: the chorus of "Dubinushka" can be stretched for the length of a minute, but you can also sing to the dance rhythm. Our young poets should not disdain the creation of folk songs. Forward and higher is the path for all of us, comrades, it is the only path worthy of the people of our country, of our era. What does higher mean? This means: we must rise above petty, personal squabbles, above pride, above the struggle for first place, above the desire to command others - above everything that we have inherited from the vulgarity and stupidity of the past. We are involved in a great cause, a cause of world significance, and we must personally be worthy to take part in it. We are entering an era full of the greatest tragedy, and we must prepare ourselves, learn to transform this tragedy in those perfect forms, as the ancient tragedians were able to portray it. We must not for a moment forget what the whole world of the working people thinks about us, listening to us, that we are working before the reader and viewer, which has never happened before in the entire history of mankind. I urge you, comrades, to learn - to learn to think, to work, to learn to respect and appreciate each other, as fighters on the battlefield appreciate each other, and not to waste strength in fighting each other for trifles, at a time when history called you to relentless struggle with the old world. The Japanese spoke at the congress Hijikato, Chinese Hu Lan-chi and Chinese Amy Xiao. These comrades, as it were verbally, shook hands with each other, signifying the unity of purpose of the revolutionary proletariat of the country whose bourgeoisie was infected by Europe with the sharp and deadly fit of the madness of imperialism, and the country whose bourgeoisie not only betrays its people as a sacrifice to the robber imperialists, but also exterminates them themselves. to please the imperialism of foreigners, just as the Russian landlords and manufacturers did in 1918-1922, with the cynical help of the shopkeepers of Europe, America and Japan. The congress did not clearly enough note the speeches of the representatives of the revolutionary proletariat of the two countries of the East, which can only be explained by the extreme fatigue caused by two weeks of work, which demanded an enormous strain of attention and, finally, exhausted attention. Having finished its work, the All-Union Congress of Writers unanimously expresses its sincere gratitude to the government for allowing the congress and extensive assistance to its work. The All-Union Congress of Writers notes that the successes of the internal, ideological association of writers, clearly and solidly revealed at the meetings of the congress, are the result of the decision of the Central Committee of the Lenin-Stalin Party of April 23, 1932, a decision that condemned groups of writers for motives that have nothing in common with the great tasks of our Soviet literature as a whole, but by no means denying associations on technical issues of diverse creative work. The Congress of Writers is deeply pleased and proud of the attention generously accorded to it by numerous delegations of readers. The writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not forget the lofty demands placed on them by their readers and will honestly try to meet these demands. The majority of writers, judging by the structure of their speeches, perfectly understood how enormous the significance of literature as a whole in our homeland, understood what they were obligated to do by the impressive, uninterrupted demonstration of the strict but loving attitude of readers to literature throughout the entire congress. We have the right to believe that this love is due to merit, the work of our young literature. The reader has given us the right to be proud of the attitude of the reader and Lenin's party towards us, but we must not exaggerate the significance of our work, which is still far from being completed. Self-education through self-criticism, the continuous struggle for the quality of books, the planned work - as far as it is permissible in our craft - the understanding of literature as a process created collectively and placing on us mutual responsibility for each other's work, responsibility to the reader - these are the conclusions, which we must make of the demonstration of the readers at the congress. These conclusions oblige us to immediately begin practical work—the organization of all-Union literature as a whole. We must process the enormous and most valuable material of speeches at the Congress, so that it may serve us. temporary -- I emphasize the word "temporary" -- guidance in our further work, should in every possible way strengthen and expand the connection formed at the congress with the literatures of the fraternal republics. At the congress, before the representatives of the revolutionary literature of Europe, sadly and unworthy of our literature, our poor knowledge or complete ignorance of European languages was revealed. In view of the fact that our connections with the writers of Europe will inevitably expand, we must introduce our own study of European languages. This is also necessary because it will open before us the possibility of reading in the original the greatest works of painting with a word. No less important is our knowledge of the languages of the Armenians, Georgians, Tatars, Turks, etc. We need to work out a general program for classes with beginning writers, a program that would exclude subjectivism from this work, which is extremely harmful to young people. To do this, it is necessary to combine the journals "Growth" and "Literary Study" into one journal of a literary and pedagogical nature and cancel the little successful studies of individual writers with beginners. There is a lot of work, all this is an absolutely necessary thing. In our country it is unacceptable for the growth of literature to develop by itself, we must prepare a replacement for ourselves, ourselves to expand the number of workers of the word. Then we must ask the government to discuss the need to organize an "All-Union Theater" in Moscow, in which artists of all nationalities of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would have the opportunity to acquaint us Russians with their dramatic art and through it with the past and present of their cultural life. . The main, permanent troupe of this theater should be Russian, which would play the plays of Azerbaijan, Armenians, Belarusians, Georgians, Tatars and all other nationalities of Central Asia, the Caucasus, Siberia - in Russian, in exemplary translations. The rapid growth of the literature of the fraternal republics obliges us to seriously follow the growth of these literatures and can significantly contribute to the growth of Russian dramaturgy. It is necessary to discuss the question of organizing in Moscow a "Theatre of Classics" in which plays of the classical repertoire would be performed exclusively. They, acquainting the viewer to the writers with examples of the dramatic creativity of the ancient Greeks, Spaniards and Englishmen of the Middle Ages, would raise the viewer's demands on the theater, writers - on themselves. We need to pay attention to the literature of the regions, especially Eastern and Western Siberia, draw it into the circle of our attention, publish it in the magazines of the center, take into account its significance as an organizer of culture. We must ask the government to allow the union of writers to erect a monument to the pioneer hero Pavel Morozov, who was killed by his relatives because, having understood the wrecking activities of his blood relatives, he preferred the interests of the working people to kinship with them. It is necessary to allow the publication of almanacs of the current fiction of the fraternal national republics, at least four books a year, and give the almanacs the title "Union" or "Brotherhood" with the subtitle: "Collections of modern fiction of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics." Dear comrades! Before us is a huge, varied work for the good of our country, which we are creating as the motherland of the proletariat of all countries. Get to work, comrades! Friendly, slender, fiery-- for work! Long live the friendly, strong unity of workers and fighters, in a word, long live the All-Union Red Army of Writers! And long live the all-Union proletariat, our reader,-- a reader-friend, whom the honest writers of Russia so passionately waited forXIXcentury and who has appeared, lovingly surrounds us and teaches us to work! Long live the party of Lenin-- leader of the proletariat, long live the leader of the party, Joseph Stalin! (Stormy, long-lasting applause, turning into an ovation. Everyone rises and sings the "Internationale".)
NOTES
The twenty-seventh volume includes articles, reports, speeches, greetings written and delivered by M. Gorky in 1933-1936. Some of them were included in authorized collections of journalistic and literary-critical works ("Publicistic Articles", edition 2nd - 1933; "On Literature", edition 1st - 1933, edition 2nd - 1935, as well as in the 3rd edition - 1937, prepared for publication during the life of the author) and were repeatedly edited by M. Gorky. Most of the articles, reports, speeches, and greetings included in the volume were published in periodicals and were not included in authorized collections. Articles, reports, speeches, greetings of M. Gorky are included in the collection of works for the first time.
First published in the newspapers Pravda, 1934, No 242, September 2, Izvestia of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, 1934, No 206, September 2, Literaturnaya Gazeta, 1934, No 117, September 2, and Literary Leningrad , 1934, No. 45, September 3, as well as in the publications: "The First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers", Verbatim report, M. 1934; M. Gorky, Soviet Literature, Goslitizdat, M. 1934. Included in the second and third editions of M. Gorky's collection of articles "On Literature". Published with a slight reduction according to the text of the second edition of the specified collection, checked with manuscripts and typescripts (Archive of A. M. Gorky).
In 1934, the first congress of writers attracted general attention. "Socialist realism" was declared the creative method of Soviet literature and Soviet art.
The very fact of creating a new artistic method cannot be reprehensible. The trouble was that the principles of this method, as I.N. Golomshtok “were ripening somewhere at the top of the Soviet party apparatus, brought to the attention of a select part of the creative intelligentsia at closed meetings, meetings, briefings, and then they went down to the press in calculated doses. The term “socialist realism” first appeared on May 25, 1932 on the pages of Literaturnaya Gazeta, and a few months later its principles were proposed as fundamental to all Soviet art at a mysterious meeting between Stalin and Soviet writers in Gorky’s apartment on October 26, 1932. . This meeting, too (as well as similar performances by Hitler) was surrounded by an atmosphere of gloomy symbolism in the taste of its main organizer” Golomshtok I.N. totalitarian art. - M.: Galart, 1984. - S. 85 .. At this meeting, the foundations of the future organization of writers were also laid.
The First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers (held in Moscow from August 17 to 31, 1934) became the platform from which socialist realism was proclaimed as a method that soon became universal for all Soviet culture: “Comrade Stalin called you engineers of human souls. What responsibilities does this title impose on you? It is, firstly, to know life in order to be able to depict it truthfully in works of art, to depict it not scholastically, not deadly, not simply as “objective reality”, but to depict reality in its revolutionary development. At the same time, the truthfulness and historical concreteness of the artistic depiction must be combined with the task of ideologically reshaping and educating the working people in the spirit of socialist realism” (Speech by Zhdanov) Ibid. As you can see, such a formulation of the question was very far from the prerequisites on the basis of which questions of literature were discussed ten years earlier, at the height of the NEP ”Boff J. History of the Soviet Union. T.1. - M., 1994. - P. 427 ..
At the congress, two principles of future totalitarianism in culture were demonstrated: the cult of the leader and the unanimous approval of all decisions. The principles of social realism were out of discussion. All decisions of the congress were written in advance and the delegates were given the right to vote for them. None of the 600 delegates voted against. All the speakers mainly talked about the great role of Stalin in all spheres of the country's life (he was called "architect" and "helmsman"), including in literature and art. As a result, the congress formulated an artistic ideology, not an artistic method. All previous artistic activity of mankind was considered a prehistory to a culture of a “new type”, a “culture of a higher stage”, that is, a socialist one. The basis of the most important criterion of artistic activity - the principle of humanism - at the suggestion of Gorky included "love - hate": love for the people, the party, Stalin and hatred for the enemies of the motherland. Such humanism has been called "socialist humanism". From this understanding of humanism, the principle of partisanship of art followed logically and its reverse side - the principle of a class approach to all phenomena of social life.
Obviously, socialist realism, which has its own artistic achievements and has had a certain influence on the literature of the twentieth century. nevertheless, it is a much narrower current than the realism of the twentieth century in general. Reflecting the ideological moods of Soviet society, literature, guided by Stalin's slogan of intensifying the class struggle in the course of building socialism, was increasingly drawn into the search for "enemies." Abram Tertz (A. Sinyavsky) in his article “What is socialist realism” (1957) defined its essence as follows: Purpose... The works of socialist realism are very diverse in style and content. But in each of them there is the concept of purpose in a direct or indirect sense, in an open or veiled expression. This is either a panegyric to communism and everything connected with it, or a satire on its many enemies. by: Egorova L.P., Chekalov P.K. History of Russian literature of the XX century. - P.10.
Indeed, a characteristic feature of the literature of socialist realism, socio-pedagogical, according to Gorky, is its pronounced fusion with ideology, sacredness, and also the fact that this literature was actually a special kind of mass literature, in any case, it performed its functions. These were socialist propaganda functions.
The pronounced propaganda nature of the literature of socialist realism was manifested in a noticeable predetermined plot, composition, often alternative (friends/enemies), in the author's obvious concern for the accessibility of his artistic sermon, that is, some pragmatism. The principle of the idealization of reality, which underlies the “method,” was Stalin's main tenet. Literature was supposed to lift people's spirits, create an atmosphere of expectation of a “happy life”. In itself, the aspiration of the writer of socialist realism “to the stars” - to an ideal model to which reality is likened - is not a vice, it could be normally perceived in a number of alternative principles for depicting a person, but turned into an indisputable dogma, became a brake on art.
But other voices sounded in the literature of these years - reflections on life and foreseeing its future difficulties and upheavals - in the poetry of Alexander Tvardovsky and Konstantin Simonov, in the prose of Andrei Platonov, etc. An important role in the literature of those years was played by an appeal to the past and its bitter lessons (the historical novels of Alexei Tolstoy).
Thus, the congress aroused many hopes among poets and writers. “Many perceived it as a moment of opposing the new socialist humanism, rising from the blood and dust of the battles that had just died down, to the bestial face of fascism that was advancing in Europe. Different intonations sounded in the voices of the deputies, sometimes not devoid of critical accents ... The delegates rejoiced that, thanks to the transformation of society, countless ranks of new readers rose up” Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. T.1. - M., 1994. - P. 427 ..
Collective trips of writers, artists and musicians to construction sites, to the republics became completely new methods in culture, which gave the character of a “campaign” to the purely individual work of a poet, composer or painter.
K. Simonov in his book “Through the Eyes of a Man of My Generation” recalls: “Both the construction of the White Sea Canal and the construction of the Moscow-Volga Canal, which began immediately after the completion of the first construction, were then in general and in my perception, too, not only construction, but also a humane school reforging people from bad to good, from criminals to builders of five-year plans. And through newspaper articles, and through the book that the writers created after a big collective trip in 1933 along the newly built canal, it was mainly this topic that passed through - the reforging of criminals. ... all this was presented as something - on the scale of society - very optimistic, as shifts in people's consciousness, as an opportunity to forget the past, to move on to new paths. … It sounds naive, but that's how it was” Simonov K. Through the eyes of a man of my generation: Reflections on Stalin. - M., 1988. - S.39 ..
At the same time, control over the creative activity of the entire Union and its individual members was strengthened. The role of the censor and editor in all areas of culture increased. Many major phenomena of Russian literature remained hidden from the people, including the novels of Mikhail Bulgakov and Vasily Grossman, the works of writers abroad - Ivan Bunin, V. Khodasevich, and the work of repressed writers - Nikolai Gumilyov, Osip Mandelstam. Back in the early 1930s, Stalin called M. Bulgakov's play "Running" an anti-Soviet phenomenon, an attempt to "justify or semi-justify the White Guard cause" Stalin I.V. Works, v.11. - P. 327., Stalin allowed himself rude and insulting comments to such a poet, seemingly closely connected with the party and the entire history of the revolution and civil war, as Demyan Poor. However, in 1930-1931, Stalin called him a "cowardly intellectual" who does not know the Bolsheviks well Stalin I.V. Works, v.13. - pp. 26-27., and this was enough for D. Poor to close the doors of most editorial offices and publishing houses.
In the same years, Soviet children's literature flourished. This was largely facilitated by the fact that many artists and writers, whose work "did not fit" into the rigid framework of socialist realism, went into children's literature. Children's literature talked about universal values: about kindness and nobility, about honesty and mercy, about family joys. Several generations of Soviet people grew up on the books of K.I. Chukovsky, S.Ya. Marshak, A.P. Gaidar, S.V. Mikhalkov, A.L. Barto, V.A. Kaverina, L.A. Kassilya, V.P. Kataev.
Thus, the period from 1932 to 1934 in the USSR was a decisive turn towards a totalitarian culture:
1. The art management and control apparatus was finally rebuilt.
2. The dogma of totalitarian art has found its final formulation - socialist realism.
3. A war was declared to destroy all artistic styles, forms, trends that differ from the official dogma.
In other words, three specific phenomena entered the artistic life and completely determined it as the main signs of totalitarianism: organization, ideology and terror.
The proclamation of the method of socialist realism as the main one in the new literature. The congress was preceded by a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of April 23, 1932 “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations”, which abolished many literary organizations - and above all the RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers) - and created a single Union of Writers. Its goal was declared "to unite all writers who support the platform of Soviet power and strive to participate in socialist construction ...". The convention was preceded by some liberal changes in the public atmosphere:
1) culture came to the fore as the most reliable bulwark in the fight against fascism. At this time, the famous article by M. Gorky “Who are you with, masters of culture?” Appeared, addressed to the writers of the world, to their mind and conscience: it formed the basis of many decisions of the congress of writers in defense of culture (Paris, 1935), in which B. L. Pasternak participated among others;
2) on the eve of the congress, many “frantic zealots”, carriers of communist swagger, real “demons” lost their influence - the persecutors of M. A. Bulgakov, A. P. Platonov, N. A. Klyuev, S. A. Klychkov, V. Ya. Shishkova and others, such pedlars of vigilance and a caste approach to culture as L. Averbakh, S. Rodov, G. Lelevich, O. Beskin and others. And vice versa, some former oppositionists were involved in active work in the field of culture ( N. I. Bukharin was appointed editor of Izvestia and even approved as a speaker on poetry at the First Congress instead of N. Aseev);
3) even before the congress, the idea was introduced - sometimes arbitrarily - of the writers about the greatest responsibility of creative achievements, their words for the people in the harsh, actually pre-war decade, when gunpowder smelled from all borders, about the inadmissibility of fruitless formalistic experiments, trickery, naturalistic everyday writing, and especially the preaching of human impotence, immorality, etc.
The congress of writers was opened on August 17, 1934 in the Hall of Columns in Moscow with an introductory speech by M. Gorky, in which the words were heard: "With pride and joy I open the first congress of writers in the history of the world." Subsequently, writing reports alternated - by M. Gorky himself, S. Ya. Marshak (on children's literature), A. N. Tolstoy (on dramaturgy) - and party functionaries N. I. Bukharin, K. B. Radek, speeches by A. A. Zhdanov, E. M. Yaroslavsky and others.
What and how did the writers themselves speak - not at all functionaries, not obsequious hasters in creativity - Yuri Olesha, Boris Pasternak, V. Lugovskoy? They talked about the sharply increased role of the people in the character, type of creativity, in the fate of writers.
“Do not break away from the masses ... Do not sacrifice your face for the sake of position ... With the enormous warmth that the people and the state surround us with, the danger of becoming a literary dignitary is too great. Away from this caress in the name of its direct sources, in the name of great, and efficient, and fruitful love for the motherland and the greatest people of today ”(B. Pasternak).
“We took and bit the topics. In many ways, we were moving along the top, not deep... This coincides with the drying up of the influx of fresh material, with the loss of an integral and dynamic sense of the world. We need to free up space in front of ourselves... Our goal is poetry, free in scope, poetry coming not from the elbow, but from the shoulder. Long live space! (V. Lugovskoy).
The positive side of the work of the congress was that although the names of M. Bulgakov, A. Platonov, O. Mandelstam, N. Klyuev were not mentioned, A. Bezymensky and D. Bedny were silently relegated to the background. And the frantic collectivization singer F. Panferov (with his multi-page "Bars") appeared as a phenomenon of a very low artistic culture.
Was the method (the principle of mastering the world, the original spiritual and moral position) of socialist realism to blame for many of the sins of literature?
When developing the definition of the method, the fact that it was necessary was clearly taken into account - this is already the spirit of the 30s, the spirit of a return to the national classics, to Russia, the motherland! - discard the aesthetic directives of L. D. Trotsky, the “demon of the revolution”, in the 20s. who ordered a break with the past, the denial of any continuity: “The revolution crossed time in half ... Time was cut into a living and a dead half, and it is necessary to choose a living one” (1923). It turns out that in the dead half of culture there is Pushkin, and Tolstoy, and all the literature of critical realism?!
Under these conditions, a kind of “aesthetic revolution” took place, a definition of the method and the main point, the requirement for its functioning, was found: “a true, historically concrete image of reality in its development.” A witness and participant in writers’ conversations (most often in the house of M. Gorky), chairman of the Organizing Committee of the First Congress, editor of Novy Mir, I. M. Gronsky, recalled the path to this definition:
“... I suggested calling (the creative method. - V.Ch.) proletarian socialist, and even better communist realism ... We will emphasize two points: firstly, the class, proletarian nature of Soviet literature, and secondly, we will indicate to literature the aim of the whole movement, of the whole struggle of the working class, is communism.
You have correctly pointed out the class, proletarian character of Soviet literature,” Stalin remarked in answering me, “and correctly named the goal of our entire struggle... Pointing out the ultimate goal of the struggle of the working class—communism—is also correct. But after all, we do not pose as a practical task the question of the transition from socialism to communism... By pointing to communism as a practical goal, you are getting ahead of yourself a little... How would you react if we call the creative method of Soviet literature and art socialist? realism? The advantage of such a definition is, firstly, brevity (only two words), secondly, clarity and, thirdly, an indication of continuity in the development of literature.
Socialist realism is an accurate reflection of the era of the 30s. as the pre-war era, which required the utmost solidity, the absence of strife and even disputes, an ascetic era, in a certain sense simplified, but extremely integral, hostile to individualism, immorality, anti-patriotism. Having received a retroactive effect, that is, being extended to the story "Mother" by Gorky, to the Soviet classics of the 20s, he gained powerful support, persuasiveness. But called upon to be "responsible" for the ideologically depleted, normative literature of the 1940s and 1950s, almost for the entire "mass culture", he became the object of feuilleton-cheeky irony.
