{"id":5411,"date":"2025-04-24T13:08:47","date_gmt":"2025-04-24T13:08:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=5411"},"modified":"2025-04-24T13:08:48","modified_gmt":"2025-04-24T13:08:48","slug":"serious-mistakes-of-stalin-and-zhdanov-in-literature-art-theory-and-practice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=5411&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"Serious Mistakes of Stalin and Zhdanov in Literature & Art Theory and Practice"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Serious Mistakes of Stalin and Zhdanov in Literature & Art Theory and Practice<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

January 2008<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author Prof. Zhou Zhonghou is  from <\/strong> School of Liberal Arts, Renmin University of China, Beijing<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We should take a dialectic attitude towards Stalin\u2019s practice and works in literature and art, recognizing both the correct part and incorrect part. Stalin\u2019s mistakes were mainly caused by the \u201cleft\u201d thought trend . His view as we see in his The Letter to Demyan Bedny on December 12, 1930 was \u201cleft\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Demyan Bedny wrote three ironic poems Get down from the Oven, Without Mercy and Pererva. In this letter, Stalin believed that these three works actually became a slander to the Soviet society and an insult to the proletariat and working people. He wrote in this letter: \u201cWhere is the essence of your error? It lies in that: your criticism on shortcomings of the Soviet life was accurate and smart at first, but this necessary and inevitable criticism makes you excessively intoxicated. Once you are intoxicated, the criticism in your works turns into a slander to the past and the present of the Soviet Union. The same happens to Your Get down from the Oven, Without Mercy and Pererva\u2026\u201d Are the three works a \u201cBolshevik criticism\u201d on demerits according to Demyan Bedny or are they defamation and insult to the Soviet society, the proletariat and working people as Stalin said? Demyan Bedny did not admit that his poems were slander. According to him, Molotov once praised his vignette Get down from the Oven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stalin wrote then: \u201cIt is probably that my praise for this vignette may be no less than Comrade Molotov, because it boasts many wonderful parts (just as other vignettes). However, there is also a spoonful of tar, which stains the entire picture and turns it into exact Pererva. The problem is that this stuff composes the music for the vignette. \u201d There is a logical contradiction in Stalin\u2019s statement. Although he had praise, he negated the article on the whole, which is sharply contradictory to the saying that \u201cmy praise for this vignette may be no less than Comrade Molotov\u201d. After all, evaluations of Bedny, Molotov and Stalin for the three poems are subjective, and practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. Whether the subjective understanding makes sense depends on art practice; thus, Bedny\u2019s three poems and their social effects are the only criterion to check their understandings. The key problem is not to point out the self-contradiction of Stalin, but to make an appropriate and realistic analysis of Bedny\u2019s three poems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Demyan Bedny\u2019s three satirical poems were published in Pravda in 1930. Get down from the Oven criticized lazy cowards among workers and bureaucrats who liked to brag and had the lazy nature of Russia through the description of Donbas coal mine. \u201cPererva\u201d is a folk dialect, referring to \u201cquagmire\u201d or \u201cswamp\u201d, that is, a mess. The poem Pererva criticized the mess of the railway through the realistic description of railway traffic problems, continuous roll-over crashes, no protection for passengers\u2019 lives and the property of the country and some railway works who \u201conly cares about eating and drinking and do not concentrate on their work\u201d. Without Mercy quoted many contents from historical works of Karamzin, a Russian court official, and Rules of Conduct, a maxims preaching feudal morality, and criticized shortcomings of some workers through recalling backward consciousness in the history. About the three poems, Stalin summarized that Bedny announced to the whole world: \u201cRussia in the past was filled with bottles of ugliness and decadence; Russia at present is exactly \u2018Pererva\u2019, \u2018lazy\u2019 and eager to \u2018sit on the oven\u2019, which is characteristic of all Russian people, and thus is the national feature of Russian workers who achieved the October Revolution and are still Russian people of course.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stalin thought that this was a slander on the Soviet people and an insult to the Soviet Union, the Soviet proletariat and the Russian proletariat. Did Bedny slander the entire Soviet Union or insult all Soviet people, including the Soviet working class? We will talk about it from five aspects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Firstly, except for quotations in the beginning\u2014\u201ca kind proverb of the kind Russian people: after paying tax and storing food, we keep lying on the oven\u2026\u201d and \u201ca proverb of the Russian people about themselves: we lie on the oven to go fight and only care about eating and drinking in ignorance of work\u2026\u201d, Bedny\u2019s three poems do not talk about the entire Soviet Union and all Soviet people. These proverbs literally mention \u201cthe Russian people\u201d, but in essence, they were created by and only talk about some Russian people. That fact that Bedny quoted these proverbs cannot prove that he mentioned the entire Soviet Union and all Russian people. Get down from the Oven only describes that \u201cDonbas is in the bad way\u201d and Pererva only portrays that \u201cThe railway gets out of hand\u201d. We cannot say that the criticism of an apartment of the Soviet Union is the one of the entire Soviet Union or the criticism of some Russian people is the one of all Russian people or the criticism of some Russian workers is the one of all Russian workers. Bedny said that what he criticized was \u201cthe most indecent and incompetent class\u201d \u201cin our working class\u201d, which shows that he did not aim at all the workers. Stalin\u2019s remarks on \u201cthe event of Demfuk\u201d are the most appropriate to solve the problem. Sosnovski and Bedny, etc., criticized the negative phenomena in the Soviet society, and some blamed them, saying that they talked about the corruption of the Soviet system or all Soviet authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is a problem concerning parts and the whole. Stalin said, \u201cLet\u2019s first discuss about the issue of Sosnovski, though it is not a core issue. People blame him that he seems to assert all Soviet organs and even the system itself have been decadent. I do not see this assertion, and on one has pointed out where he mentions it\u2026(Sosnovski) has never talked about the corruption of the Soviet system or Soviet authorities\u2026On the contrary, I want to point out his contribution here, which nobody has noticed. The credit of Pravda, Sosnovski and Bedny lies in that they are courageous enough to draw out pieces of the real life in front of the entire country. This credit must be revealed. We should praise them rather than criticizing them for going too far.\u201d  As for \u201cthe event of Demfuk\u201d in a rural area of Ukraine, which was a negative side of life, Pravda, Sosnovski and Bedny dared to expose it and thought it was not a unique phenomenon and was somewhat typical. Even so, Stalin also believed that it was their credit and could not blame them for attacking the decadence of the Soviet system and authorities. His analysis of \u201cthe event of Demfuk\u201d is fully applicable to the three poems of Bedny. There is no evidence to prove that they slandered the entire Soviet Union and insulted all the Soviet people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, Stalin advocated literature and art should take up the task of criticism.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The key problem was not criticism, but that this criticism was not realistic. Bedny\u2019s satirical poems were based on news reports. For instance, News of the Soviet Central Executive Committee reported, \u201cHalf of the mineral authorities are terrible\u2026According to Shwarcy, chairman of the Coal Industry Federation, the mineral mechanization is terrible, simply a crime\u2026Chief executives and technical staff haven\u2019t entered work sheds and even haven\u2019t got down into mines for six months (, which is a fact!).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pravda said, \u201cBureaucratic employment\u2014is a disservice to Donbas\u201d and \u201clabor reduction in Donbas is still continuing. One hundred and ten thousand farm laborers have been recruited to supplement workers cadre in Donbas, but what is worse; more than 50 percent of them have left the mine.\u201d A large number of news reports became materials and circumstantial evidence for Get down from the Oven. Pererva, a poem criticizing the railway, also had many news reports as the basis. For example, \u201cTwo switchmen, one switchman and three switchmen and linkman Shulebov were absent from work for no reason respectively on August 16, August 17 and August 20. On August 23, a locomotive and a fully loaded wagon turned over on the ring line, and another fully loaded wagon was damaged against a signal pole: the driver drove the car at a full speed to crush into the wagon, consequently all axes being broken, the frame being damaged and the body being ruined\u201d, and \u201cOn August 12, executives started to drink from 9 o\u2019clock and did not leave the table until all bottles of alcohol were finished. During working hours, workers coming to the office could do nothing related to work for this joyful mood of executives.\u201d Since newspapers could report on these real situations, why could not Bedny write about them?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thirdly, Stalin accused Bedny for not having the national pride of Russians and testified to it by quoting Lenin\u2019s On the National Pride of the Russian People.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stalin lacked dialectic thinking on this issue. One side of the historical tradition of the Russian people was mentioned by Lenin, but he also discussed about the other side. Lenin said, \u201cThere has been such a typical image in the Russian life as Oblomov. He is always lying on the bed, making plans. It has been a very long period of time since then. Russia has experienced three revolutions, but there are still many Oblomovs, because Oblomov is not only a landowner, but also a farmer, not only a farmer, but also an intellectual, not only an intellectual, but also a worker and Communist Party member. As long as we find out how our meetings are held and how we work in various committees, we can say that the old Oblomov is still here. Thus, we must clean and spur him for a long term, good results will come.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Bedny wrote in the three poems about the other side of the Russian national tradition mentioned by Lenin, that is, the side of the spirit of Oblomov. It is not correct to say that the statement of the negative aspect of the Russian historical tradition is lack of the national pride and is the distortion of the historical tradition of the Russian people. It is a proper behavior and even a must to criticize the negative side of modern Russian people and associate with the negative aspect of their historical tradition. Bedny\u2019s three poems criticized the laziness of Russian people, which is the spirit of Oblomov scolded by Lenin. When criticizing it, Lenin also blamed the historical tradition of Russian people. Can we say because Lenin said the spirit of Oblomov was reflected among landlords, farmers, workers, intellectuals and Communist Party members even after three revolutions, he distorted the Russian historical tradition? That is obviously not. Similarly, we cannot say Bedny distorted the historical tradition of Russian people. Two standards cannot be used to treat one issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourthly, whether it is an earnest criticism or malicious defamation and insult mainly lies in whether the author\u2019s criticism of shortcomings of the people really stands on the position of them and whether he hopes that the criticized correct their mistakes.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bedny\u2019s criticism struck home, but he sincerely wished to change this situation. Except that he advocated punishing criminals, he suggested criticizing, advising and educating the people. For instance, in Get down from the Oven, Bedny still hoped that people keeping sleeping on the oven got down, and he advised, \u201cWe should have \u2018looked at ourselves in the mirror\u2019. Who sleep and snore greedily except slaves?\u201d He also mentioned, \u201cWe are supposed to have the strong will of Bolshevik, the determination of the proletariat and the indefatigable fighting spirit\u201d \u201cin order to help the poor get rid of shackles of rich farmers and consolidate the power of poor peasants in labor and battles\u201d. In Pererva, he criticized \u201cpeople who maliciously look at the face of our working-class people\u201d, and he wished to end the state of \u201cPererva\u201d as soon as possible. He wrote, \u201cIf things shamefully keep this state, our Soviet system will collapse and bury itself in the Pererva of the entire Soviet Union!!!\u201d From these verses, we can see that Bedny hoped that workers \u201cwork hard\u201d and \u201cenjoy honor\u201d, and he also hoped that the Soviet system would be consolidated and develop further. There is no insult and slander at all. In Without Mercy, Bedny also hoped that the frank and tough criticism would further consolidate the Soviet system and enable the Russian people to overcome their shortcomings. In short, these three poems are far from defamation and insult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fifthly, Bedny\u2019s three poems are all critical, which is related to their genre, because what he wrote are satirical poems and satire is critical, which is the same as comics. In The Speech at the Conference on Literature and Art in Yan\u2019an, Mao Zedong said that literature and art should take up \u201cthe most important task\u201d of criticism and self-criticism and meanwhile he mentioned the internal irony. Internal irony is also a criticism. Thus, some genres, such as satirical poems and comics, should be allowed to focus on criticism. Stalin criticized in the letter to Bedny, \u201cYou do not understand the greatest process in the history of revolution and do not upgrade yourself to assume the task of being an advanced proletarian singer\u2026\u201dSuch criticism is inappropriate, and he did not take into account characteristics of the genre of satirical poems Bedny used. A singer can write hymns, agitating poetry and lyric poetry, but the mission of satirical poetry is criticism. Bedny actually composed a lot of excellent agitating poetry and lyric poetry, so he had worked as a singer. Poets can act as both singers and critics. It is not good to advocate praise, ban criticism and require poets criticizing something by means of satirical poems to praise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In summary, the \u201cleft\u201d idea in Stalin\u2019s works on literature and art should be disclosed properly. The \u201cleft\u201d trend in China\u2019s literary and art circles in the past was not unrelated to his \u201cleft\u201d idea. Therefore, realistically pointing out his \u201cleft\u201d thinking in literary and art works is a practical guiding significance to the criticism of the \u201cleft\u201d trend in our literary and art theories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Serious Mistakes of Zhdanov in Literature and Art<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After World War II, due to the intensified cult of personality, the \u201cleft\u201d part in Stalin\u2019s literary and art ideas played an increasingly negative role. As the leader of the Soviet party and government responsible for literature and art, Zhdanov specifically implemented Stalin\u2019s thoughts on this aspect. During this period, Zhdanov made more and more damages to literature and art. In 1946, he prompted Stalin and the Central Committee to criticize Zoshchenko, Akhmatova and a series of literary and artistic works. Zhdanov died in 1948, but the pernicious influence exerted by the \u201cleft\u201d idea of him and Stalin was not controlled until 1953 when Stalin died. We will talk about serious mistakes made by Stalin and Zhdanov in three aspects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Firstly, the first argument used by Stalin and Zhdanov to criticize Zoshchenko and Akhmatova was against exposing the dark side. Zoshchenko (1894-1958) was a well-known Soviet novelist. During the Civil War, he went to the front to defend the Soviet regime. His excellent satirical novels had highly appreciated by Gorky. He received the Red Banner Medal in 1939. His sharp and pungent satirical art was loved by the majority of the people in the Soviet Union. The magazine Zvezda published his The Adventures of a Monkey on the fifth and sixth issue in 1946. Through the description of a monkey running out of the zoo and being adopted by different masters, this work reveals and attacks a variety of dark negative phenomenon objectively existing in the Soviet society. As Stalin criticized Bedny, Zhdanov was dissatisfied with the dark side exposed by Zoshchenko, saying \u201cHe cannot find a positive phenomenon in the Soviet people\u2019s life, nor an affirmative case.\u201d  Zhdanov criticized that he \u201cmocks the Soviet life, the Soviet system and the Soviet people\u201d, and even raised it to the scary height of \u201canti-Soviet\u201d  and accused \u201cThe Adventures of a Monkey of despicable slander on the Soviet way of life and the Soviet people\u201d .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zhdanov abused him as \u201cBabbitt\u201d, \u201cdirty guy\u201d, \u201cboring scholar\u201d, \u201cliterary rogue\u201d, \u201ccrook\u201d, \u201cdreg\u201d, etc. Later, he was expelled from the Soviet Writers\u2019 Association and lost the right to compose works. Poor and ill, he died young. The death of Zoshchenko is absolutely the guilt of Zhdanov.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zhdanov not only opposed works exposing the dark side, but also criticized works which praised the bright side but did not write \u201call about the bright side\u201d. The Brilliant Life written by famous writers Barwell and Nilin was a two-episode story movie reflecting the life of Donbas miners in the post-war Soviet Union. This movie praised the labor enthusiasm among coal miners in Donbas after fascist occupiers were expelled. Just because there were many backward scenes about the low education of workers, poor technology, obsolete equipment, and so on, the movie was accused by Stalin and Zhdanov. They criticized it in the form of the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee. They did not care about enthusiastic work of coal miners in the post-war Soviet Union, but said that \u201cAccording to the technology and production development displayed in The Brilliant Life, the movie reflects the period of reconstruction of the Donbas mine after the end of the civil war, rather than the modern Donbas with advanced technology and culture during the period of Stalin\u2019s five-year plan\u201d  and \u201cThus, the movie has distorted the prospect of post-war industrial recovery in our country based on advanced technology and high development level of production\u201d . The description of old mining equipment was a distortion of the Soviet Union and the display of low educational and technical level among workers was the distortion of the Soviet people. In terms of this logic, they thought, \u201cThe description in The Brilliant Life is absurd and distorted.\u201d  What was more, the extolling title The Brilliant Life was said to be \u201ca mockery of the Soviet reality\u201d . Give a dog a bad name, and hang him. Owing to the administrative intervention brought about by these accusations, the second episode of this movie was banned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the influence of Stalin and Zhdanov, works uncovering the dark side were criticized and banned. The short story The Ivanov Family published by Andr\u00e9 Platonov in 1946 mainly describes what a Red Army soldier saw and heard on the way home, and consequently was sentenced as the \u201cslander\u201d on the Soviet people. Peace written by Y. Yanofusky in 1947 was not published in time because of many negative phenomena described in it. Galina Nikolaeva’s long novel The Harvest (1949) was \u201ccategorically rejected\u201d by the publishing sector because it \u201cprofoundly reveals\u201d \u201creasons for the backwardness of farms\u201d. Later, it was published after \u201cthe key chapter\u201d revealing \u201creasons for the backwardness of farms\u201d was deleted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another harm brought by the opposition of Stalin and Zhdanov to the exposure of the dark side was the negative tendency of some works whitewashing the reality. S. Babaevskiy\u2019s Dream of a Cossack published in 1947 took on this tendency of whitewashing the reality. This novel talks about a hero who returned home from the front and easily transformed the backward and chaotic look of the hometown. In his second long novel The Brightness Shines on the Earth (1949-1950), the hero\u2019s success seemed much easier. Stalin and Zhdanov even encouraged this tendency with literary and art prizes. Dream of a Cossack was awarded the Stalin Prize. Treated as the \u201cnew harvest\u201d and \u201cnew achievement\u201d in the Soviet literature, each volume of The Brightness Shines on the Earth was awarded the Stalin Prize. Among works awarded the Stalin Prize, novels such as Wholeheartedly, Morning Glow, In Countries of Victims (all published in 1948), Maria (1949) and Fishing Village (1950), scripts such as The Dawn Light Shines on Moscow and The Snowball Flower Forest (all published in 1950) and the feature film Cossacks in Kuban (i.e. Happy Life) all tended to whitewash the reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposition to exposure of the dark and backward side is based on the conflict-free theory. Since the Soviet Union announced the elimination of exploiting classes and \u201cpolitical and moral equality\u201d among all domestic classes in 1936, the popular opinion in the society under the influence of Stalin\u2019s theory was: \u201cThere is no antagonistic contradiction or non-antagonistic contradiction under socialist conditions\u201d, and even \u201cThe possibility of contradiction and conflict has been expelled\u201d . This erroneous theory did not allow writers to write about conflicts and reveal the dark, backward side. From the subjective point of view, Stalin and Zhdanov believed that the exposure of dark and backward side was the denial of their contributions, so they were furious once seeing such works. Although Stalin theoretically advocated disclosing the dark and backward side, he performed quite differently in practice. Form the above analysis, we can see that what Zoshchenko and Nilin exposed in The Adventures of a Monkey and The Brilliant Life was an objective reality, and artistic realness is derived from the objective life. From the subjective point of view, the reason why they disclosed the dark and backward side was that they intended to destroy the dark side and change the backward side. There was no motive of \u201cslander\u201d and \u201cdistortion\u201d. Therefore, the criticism of them was arbitrary and baseless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, the second argument used by Stalin and Zhdanov to criticize Zoshchenko and Akhmatova was against the performance of \u201cvile and trivial\u201d inner life. When criticizing Zoshchenko, Zhdanov also criticized his Before Sunrise published in the early 1944. When mentioning this novel, Zhdanov wrote, \u201cIn this book, Zoshchenko complacently and enjoyably reveals his nasty heart in order to show to everyone: you see, what a rogue I am!\u201d \u201cIn our literature, it is difficult to find something more disgusting than the \u2018morality\u2019 advocated by the Zoshchenko\u2019s medium-length novel Before Sunrise, and he describes others and himself as shameless, conscienceless, despicable and licentious beasts\u201d . Zhdanov opposed Zoshchenko \u201cthoroughly revealing his nasty soul\u201d. What is the truth? Before Sunrise is an art work exploring the mystery of human soul, and an autobiographical novella written according to his experience of curing his melancholia and neurasthenia. Through the description of reason overcoming instinct, the novel explains the overcoming process ensures health and happiness. The author recalled the reason for his disease, subconscious activities including dreams, illusion and instinctive impulse accounting for a large proportion. His rare courage and honesty displayed the secret of his soul. As the writer said, the disclosure of the inner world could only be achieved by \u201can iron personality\u201d. Indeed, it is commendable to uncover disadvantages and weaknesses of one\u2019s inner soul by means of an autobiographical novel. This exposure was not for promotion and appreciation or exhibition, but for the display of the victory of reason. Exploring the mystery of the kingdom of the soul, Zoshchenko\u2019s Before Sunrise is a success, which marks the advancement of the Soviet literature. He did not only write about novels revealing the inner life. From 1940 to 1941, he wrote The Story of Lenin, and in 1942 he wrote a drama with a war theme Cuckoo Crow and a film story Soldiers\u2019 Happiness. However, he only focused on one point, in ignorance of others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zoshchenko\u2019s Before Sunrise was obviously influenced by Western literary thoughts. He described subconscious activities, instincts and impulses, which was impacted by Freud and was a positive influence. Freud\u2019s theory on literature and art and aesthetics enabled writers and artists to pay more attention to subconscious and unconscious activities and the kingdom of the soul. Zoshchenko was influenced by Freud exactly in this aspect. However, he did not fully take Freud\u2019s pansexualism and did not explain all mental phenomena in Before Sunrise with pansexualism. His in-depth analysis of the soul kingdom is not only understandable, but also commendable. Before Sunrise uses many techniques of free association and interior monologue, so it can be said that this novel is written in the method of stream of consciousness. However, under the control of Stalin and Zhdanov, socialist realism dominated the literary and art circles, and Zoshchenko\u2019s stream of consciousness was evidently regarded as being outrageous. In fact, stream of consciousness is fit for the description of the inner life. Because Stalin and Zhdanov completely blocked and excluded the Western literary and artistic trend, it was not surprising to criticize Before Sunrise. The damage brought by this attitude to the Soviet literature and art was obvious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The view against the description of weaknesses and shortcomings in the inner life, against techniques of describing the inner life and accusing these works of reflecting dark psychology not only brought great harm to the Soviet literature and art, but also poisoned China. The theory on \u201cdark mentality\u201d enabled the display of the inner life to be a restricted area, and many artists and writers were discouraged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thirdly, the second argument used by Stalin and Zhdanov to criticize Zoshchenko and Akhmatova was that their works were \u201cnot politics-related\u201d . Akhmatova was a famous poetess of the Soviet Union. She published a collection of poems Evening in 1912 and another collection Rosary in 1914. She published Wayside Grass \/ Plantain after the October Revolution in 1921 and Anno Domini in 1922. Many of these poems eulogize love and display delicate and complex aesthetic emotions of women in pursuit of love. Zhdanov accused, \u201cWhat Akhmatova writes is thorough individualism. The scope of her poetry\u2014the poetry for a rich lady crazily running between the boudoir and the chapel\u2014is miserably narrow. Her basic tone is love and sex intertwined with sadness, depression, death, mystery and fate. Fateful emotions\u2014emotions understood by the social consciousness of the dying group\u2014the tragic desperate tone before the death\u2014a mystical pornographic experience\u2014this is Akhmatova\u2019s spiritual world.\u201d  As the sublimation of beauty, love is the eternal theme of poetry. Zhdanov\u2019s criticism here is unconvincing. First, the description of a girl\u2019s love, of course, is inseparable from the individual, and should not be criticized as \u201cthorough individualism\u201d. Second, the basic mood of Akhmatova\u2019s poetry is love rather than pornography. Third, emotions such as sadness, depression and death reflected in poems are neither mysterious fatalism nor emotions understood by the social consciousness of a \u201cdying group\u201d. Works of art do not all talk about politics, so we should not require all of them to be concerned about politics. We should not accuse love poems of \u201cno profound thought\u201d, \u201caestheticism\u201d, \u201cdecadence\u201d, \u201cpure art\u201d\u2026 as what Zhdanov did, just because they are not concerned with politics, and we should never take abusive tactics. Zhdanov even shouted abuse to Akhmatova, \u201cShe is one of residues of the ancient aristocratic culture of the \u2018good old Kasalin\u2019s age\u2019. She is not entirely a nun or a slut. To be more precise, she is a slut and nun murmuring a mixture of licentious laugh and prayer.\u201d  As a party leader, he should not have abused such a talented poetess. In fact, she was not absolutely apolitical. During the Great Patriotic War, she wrote patriotic poems publicizing the brave spirit, such as Swear (1941), Courage (1942) and The Victory (1942-1945). Slander on her was torn down in the late 1950s and she resumed her reputation. Zhdanov not only required any art work should be concerned about politics, but also made literature and art serve for policies instead of politics. He said, \u201cWe require our leaders and writers in literary and art circles to treat the thing that the Soviet system depends on as the guideline, that is, to treat policies as the guideline.\u201d  In this way, literature and art had become the illustration of policies. Works became poor materials of publicity or lost their artistic value due to changes in policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Serious mistakes of Stalin and Zhdanov made huge damages to China\u2019s literary and art circles. Stalin\u2019s literary theories, Zhdanov Talks about Literature and Art and Problems in Soviet Literature and Art were translated into Chinese respectively. The pernicious influence of these literary and art works was wide. The \u201cleft\u201d view in China\u2019s literary and art circles, such as the opposition to the exposure of the dark side and the dark mentality and the proposal that literature and art serves for politics, are all related to the \u201cleft\u201d thought of Stalin and Zhdanov. Cleaning up serious mistakes of Stalin and Zhdanov in literature and art is also beneficial to eliminate the pernicious influence of \u201cleft\u201d in our literary and art field.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Serious Mistakes of Stalin and Zhdanov in Literature & Art Theory and Practice January 2008 Author Prof. Zhou Zhonghou is  from  School of Liberal Arts, Renmin University of China, Beijing We should take a dialectic attitude towards Stalin\u2019s practice and works in literature and art, recognizing both the correct part and incorrect part. Stalin\u2019s mistakes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,29,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5411","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english-en","category-philosophy-en","category-uncategorized"],"blocksy_meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5411","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5411"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5411\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5412,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5411\/revisions\/5412"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5411"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5411"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5411"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}