Great Soviet Encyclopedia - Union of Writers of the USSR. How the Union of Soviet Writers was born Chairman of the Union of Writers of the USSR in 1962

80 years ago, on April 23, 1932, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations.” The document contained a directive according to which all writers' organizations that existed in the first years of Soviet power were subject to dissolution. In their place, a single Union of Soviet Writers was created.

RAPP AND RAPPOVTSY

The New Economic Policy, pursued by the Bolsheviks from the spring of 1921, allowed for some freedom and relative pluralism in all spheres of society, with the exception of politics. In the 1920s, unlike later times, different artistic methods and styles openly competed. Various directions, trends and schools coexisted in the literary environment. But squabbles continued between the factions. Which is not surprising: creative people have always been arrogant, vulnerable and envious.

While people were reading Yesenin’s poems (judging by requests in libraries), organizations that preached a narrow class, sociological approach to the problems of literature began to gain the upper hand in the intergroup struggle. The All-Union Association of Proletarian Writers (VAPP) and the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers (RAPP) claimed to be the spokesman for the position of power. Rappovites, without mincing words, criticized all writers who, in their opinion, did not meet the criteria of a Soviet writer.

Rapp’s magazine “On Post” expressed its claim to become an ideological overseer of writers. Already in its first issue (1923) it went to many famous writers and poets. G. Lelevich (pseudonym of Labori Kalmanson) stated: “Along with the severance of social ties, Mayakovsky is characterized by some kind of special sensitivity of the nervous system. Not healthy, even furious, anger, not ferocious anger, but some kind of twitchiness, neurasthenia, hysteria.” Boris Volin was indignant that in the book “The Life and Death of Nikolai Kurbov” Ilya Erenburg “smears tar on the gates of the revolution not only with large strokes, he also splashes small splashes on them.” Lev Sosnovsky kicked Gorky, who lived abroad: “So, the revolution, and its most acute manifestation - the civil war - for Maxim Gorky - a fight of large animals. In Gorky’s opinion, you shouldn’t write about this fight, because you’ll have to write a lot of rude and cruel things... Let’s read and re-read the old (i.e., more correctly young) Gorky, with his fight songs full of courage and daring, and we’ll try forget about the new Gorky, who has become sweet for the bourgeois circles of Europe, and who toothlessly dreams of a serene life and a time when all people will eat... only semolina porridge.” However, it was not possible to forget Gorky. But more on that below.

In 1926, the magazine “At the Post” began to be called “At the Literary Post.” At the same time, a very colorful character, the critic and publicist Leopold Averbakh, became its executive editor. It’s worth saying something special about him.

Averbakh was lucky (for the time being) with family connections, which provided the young man with a comfortable life under the tsarist regime and a career under Soviet rule. The future ideologist of RAPP was the son of a large Volga manufacturer and nephew of the Bolshevik Yakov Sverdlov, then he became the son-in-law of Lenin’s longtime ally Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich and the brother-in-law of the all-powerful Genrikh Yagoda.

Averbakh turned out to be an arrogant, energetic, ambitious young man and not without talent as an organizer. Shoulder to shoulder with Averbakh, the fight against alien ideology was carried out by ideologists and activists of the RAPP: writers Dmitry Furmanov, Vladimir Kirshon, Alexander Fadeev, Vladimir Stavsky, playwright Alexander Afinogenov, critic Vladimir Ermilov. Kirshon would later write: “It was in the magazine “At the Literary Post” that the ideologists of bourgeois, kulak literature, Trotskyists, Voronshchina, Pereverzevism, leftist vulgarism, etc. were rebuffed.” Many writers got it. In particular, Mikhail Bulgakov. They say that the unforgettable image of the Shvonder house manager was inspired by the Npostovites (from “At the Post”) to the author of “Heart of a Dog.”

Meanwhile, the curtailment of NEP, which began in the late 20s on Stalin’s initiative, was not limited to the complete collectivization of agriculture and the course towards socialist industrialization. It was also decided to place the activities of the creative intelligentsia under closer organizational, ideological and political control of the individually ruling party. In addition, the RAPP's claim to become the ideological organizer of Soviet literature clearly did not come true. Its leaders were not authoritative for the other writers, who were called “sympathizers” and “fellow travelers.”

RETURN OF THE PRODIGAL GENIUS AND THE DEATH OF RAPP

The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks knew a lot about literature and cinema, which he treated more than carefully. Despite his workload, he read a lot and regularly attended the theater. I watched Bulgakov’s play “Days of the Turbins” 15 times. Like Nicholas I, Stalin preferred personal censorship in relations with some writers. The consequence of this was the emergence of such a genre as a letter to the leader from a writer.

In the early 30s, the country’s leadership formed an understanding that it was time to end the confusion and groupism on the “literary front.” To centralize control, a consolidating figure was required. This, according to Stalin, should have been the great Russian writer Alexei Maksimovich Gorky. It was his return to the USSR that was the final point in the history of RAPP.

Fate played a cruel joke on Averbakh. Thanks to Yagoda, he took an active part in the operation to lure Gorky out of Italy. The writer liked the distant relative, who wrote to Stalin on January 25, 1932: “During the three weeks that Averbakh lived with me, I took a closer look at him and believe that he is a very smart, well-gifted person who has not yet developed as he should, and who Need to study". In 1937, when Gorky had already died and Yagoda was arrested, Averbakh was also taken. In a statement to the new People's Commissar of Internal Affairs Nikolai Yezhov, “a well-gifted man” admitted that he “was especially in a hurry to move Gorky from Sorrento,” since Yagoda “asked me to systematically convince Alexei Maksimovich of his speedy complete departure from Italy.”

So, the leaders of RAPP were surprised to learn that their organization, which evil tongues called “Stalin’s club,” was no longer needed by Stalin. In the Kremlin “kitchen” a “dish” was already being prepared, which became known as the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations.” During preparation, the document was redone more than once at the very top. It was also edited by Lazar Kaganovich, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee, first secretary of the Moscow Committee and the Moscow City Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).

On April 23, 1932, the resolution was adopted. It said that the framework of proletarian literary and artistic organizations had become a brake on the growth of artistic creativity. There was a “danger of transforming these organizations from a means of the greatest mobilization of Soviet writers and artists around the tasks of socialist construction into a means of cultivating circle isolation, separation from the political tasks of our time and from significant groups of writers and artists who sympathize with socialist construction.” The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, recognizing the need to liquidate the Proletkult organizations, decided to “unite all writers who support the platform of Soviet power and strive to participate in socialist construction into a single union of Soviet writers with the communist faction in it.” And “to carry out similar changes in other types of art (association of musicians, composers, artists, architects, etc. organizations).”

And although the document did not cause joy among all writers, many of them applauded the idea of ​​​​creating a single union of writers. The idea put forward by the authorities to hold an All-Union Congress of Writers also inspired hope.

“I ASKED STALIN...”

The reaction to the Central Committee resolution in the Rappist camp can be judged from Fadeev’s letter to Kaganovich dated May 10, 1932. Fadeev lamented: eight years of his “mature party life were not spent on fighting for socialism, in the literary sector of this struggle, it was not spent on fighting for the party and its Central Committee with the class enemy, but on some kind of groupism and circleism "

After the Presidium of the Organizing Committee of the All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers held its first meeting on May 26, Kirshon addressed a letter to Stalin and Kaganovich. This message to the leaders, quite daring for that time, is worthy of detailed quotation. The author of the poem “I asked the ash tree...” (song written by Mikael Tariverdiev) was indignant:

“It was decided to change the editorial boards of all literary newspapers and magazines. This change, as is clear from the attached protocol, is aimed at the complete elimination of the former leadership of RAPP and the writers and critics who shared its positions. Not only were the editors Averbakh, Fadeev, Selivanovsky, Kirshon removed, but the editorial board was composed in such a way that only t.t. Fadeev and Afinogenov were brought into the editorial office, where besides them there were 8-10 people each, comrade. Averbakh remained a member of the editorial board of “Literary Heritage”, and the remaining comrades - Makaryev, Karavaeva, Ermilov, Sutyrin, Buachidze, Shushkanov, Libedinsky, Gorbunov, Serebryansky, Illesh, Selivanovsky, Troshchenko, Gidash, Luzgin, Yasensky, Mikitenko, Kirshon and others were removed from everywhere and are not included in any edition according to this resolution.

I believed that such a massive removal from everywhere of a group of communist writers who for several years had defended, albeit with errors, the party line on the literary front, could not achieve the consolidation of communists in a single union. It seems to me that this is not consolidation, but liquidation...

Comrade Stalin spoke about the need to put us on “equal conditions.” But in this situation, the result may not be “equal conditions”, but defeat. The resolution of the Organizing Committee does not leave us with a single journal. Comrades from the philosophical leadership who fiercely fought against us and support Panferov’s group were confirmed as the responsible editors of the Organizing Committee...

I did not think that communist writers had discredited themselves so much before the party that they could not be trusted to edit a single literary magazine, and that it was necessary to invite comrades from another section of the ideological front - philosophers - to guide literature. It seems to me that the intended comrades, who have not carried out any literary work and are unfamiliar with its practice, will manage magazines worse in new and difficult conditions than communist writers.”

Kirshon was especially outraged by the fact that he could not “express his thoughts” at the meeting of the communist faction of the Organizing Committee: “The decision was made as follows: the faction bureau (ie. Gronsky, Kirpotin and Panferov) made all these decisions without any discussion with communist writers, at least with members of the Organizing Committee, and then brought it to the Presidium with non-party writers, where it was approved.”

Concluding the letter, Kirshon asked: “We want to actively and energetically fight for the implementation of the decision of the Central Committee. We want to give Bolshevik works. We ask that you give us the opportunity to work on the literary front, correct the mistakes we have made, and rebuild ourselves in new conditions. In particular, we ask the Central Committee to leave us the magazine “At the Literary Post”. Under the leadership of the party, we created this magazine in 1926, which for 6 years basically correctly fought for the party line.”

The Stalinist Secretariat of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) unpleasantly surprised the Rappovites this time too. The resolution of June 22 “On Literary Magazines” ordered “to combine the magazines “At the Literary Post”, “For Marxist-Leninist Art History” and “Proletarian Literature” into one monthly magazine.” Members of its editorial board were appointed “comrade. Dinamov, Yudin, Kirshon, Bel Illesh, Zelinsky K., Gronsky, Serafimovich, Sutyrin and Kirpotin.” Fadeev became a member of the editorial board of the Krasnaya Nov magazine.

Averbakh received another responsible assignment. In 1933, he became a participant in the famous writers’ excursion to the White Sea Canal (in 1931, the canal was transferred to the jurisdiction of the OGPU and its acting leader Yagoda). The fellow travelers turned out to be Alexei Tolstoy, Vsevolod Ivanov, Leonid Leonov, Mikhail Zoshchenko, Lev Nikulin, Boris Pilnyak, Valentin Kataev, Viktor Shklovsky, Marietta Shaginyan, Vera Inber, Ilf and Petrov and others. Then the writers created a collective work - “White Sea-Baltic Canal named after Stalin." Averbakh, who wrote only a few pages, had the dubious honor of editing the publication. His name as a co-editor appears on the title page of the book along with the names of Gorky and Semyon Firin, the head of the White Sea-Baltic forced labor camp.

FIRST CONGRESS OF WRITERS: THE FACE AND THE WRONG END

Preparations for the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers lasted for more than two years. The writers continued to sort things out and complain to Stalin about Gorky and each other. Thus, Fyodor Panferov told “the best friend of Soviet writers”: “Averbakh wants to break my back with the help of Gorky.” Pravda published Gorky’s article “On Language” (03/18/1934). He writes about Panferov that he uses “meaningless and ugly words that litter the Russian language,” although “he is at the head of the magazine (“October.” - O.N.) and teaches young writers, although he himself is apparently incapable or wanting to learn.” Panferov turned to Stalin for support. And he, considering that the discussion had gone beyond acceptable limits, put an end to it.

The first congress of the Union of Soviet Writers, which began on August 17, 1934, became a major event in the life of the country. Gorky greeted the delegates (377 with a casting vote, 220 with an advisory vote): “With pride and joy I open the first in the history of the world congress of writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, embracing 170 million people within its borders (stormy, prolonged applause).”

Guests of the congress were Louis Aragon, Andre Malraux, Friedrich Wolf, Jakub Kadri and other foreign writers. It took 26 meetings to discuss all the issues. Gorky made a report on Soviet literature, Marshak - on children's literature, Radek - on modern world literature, Bukharin - on poetry, poetics and the tasks of poetic creativity in the USSR. There were four speakers on dramaturgy - Valery Kirpotin, Alexey Tolstoy, Vladimir Kirshon and Nikolai Pogodin. Reports were also made on more specific issues. Nikolai Tikhonov spoke about Leningrad poets, and Kuzma Gorbunov spoke about the work of publishing houses with aspiring writers. Representatives of all Union republics made reports on the state of affairs in their literature (I wonder where and to whom they are speaking today?).

However, the “organs” were not left without work. They discovered an anonymous anti-Soviet letter criticizing Stalin, and also recorded the words of Isaac Babel: “Look at Gorky and Demyan Bedny. They hate each other, but at the convention they sit next to each other like lovebirds. I imagine with what pleasure they would each lead their own group into battle at this congress.” Alexander Zharov responded to Bukharin’s critical statements about poets with an epigram:

Our congress was joyful

And bright

And this day was terribly sweet -

Old Bukharin noticed us

And, going into the grave, he blessed.

The words turned out to be prophetic: four years later, “old man” Bukharin, who did not live to be 50 years old, was shot...

On September 1, closing the writers' forum, Gorky proclaimed the victory of “Bolshevism at the congress.” Socialist realism was declared a method of artistic knowledge of the world.

However, from the inside, the work of the congress did not look so rosy. Gorky's behavior caused serious discontent in the Politburo of the Central Committee. The fact that Stalin was not delighted with his report is confirmed by a telegram that came on August 30 from the Secretary General, who was vacationing in Sochi: “Gorky acted disloyal to the party by omitting the Central Committee’s decision on RAPP in his report. The result was a report not about Soviet literature, but about something else.”

In his report to Stalin on the results of the congress, Zhdanov wrote:

“We are done with the Congress of Soviet Writers. Yesterday the list of the Presidium and Secretariat of the Board was unanimously elected... Most of the noise was around Bukharin's report, and especially around the concluding remarks. Due to the fact that communist poets Demyan Bedny, Bezymensky and others gathered to criticize his report, Bukharin, in a panic, asked to intervene and prevent political attacks. We came to his aid in this matter by gathering the leading workers of the congress and giving instructions that Comrade. The communists did not allow any political generalizations against Bukharin in their criticism. The criticism, however, came out quite strong...

Most of the work was with Gorky. In the middle of the congress, he once again tendered his resignation. I was tasked with convincing him to withdraw his statement, which I did. The statement about the role of the Central Committee's decision on RAPP, which he made in his final speech, was made reluctantly, verbally, by Gorky, saying that he did not really agree with this decision, but it was necessary - that means it was necessary. All the time he was encouraged, in my deepest conviction, to make all sorts of speeches, such as resignations, his own lists of management, etc. All the time he talked about the inability of communist writers to lead the literary movement, about the wrong attitude towards Averbakh (he was not at the congress - O.N.), etc. At the end of the congress, a general upsurge captured him too, giving way to periods of decline and skepticism and a desire to escape from the “quarrelsome people” into literary work.”

Numerous letters and appeals from writers to Stalin testified that the “petrel” was not able to fully “move away from the “quarrelsome” people into literary work” even after the congress. However, this was already Gorky’s personal problem. The “Leader of the Nations” achieved his goal: the Union of Soviet Writers, created on his initiative, became an important and reliable element of the Stalinist system of power.

Oleg NAZAROV, Doctor of Historical Sciences

Direct speech

From the speech of the Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks Andrei Zhdanov at the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers on August 17, 1934:

Comrade Stalin called our writers engineers of human souls. What does it mean? What responsibilities does this title impose on you?

This means, firstly, to know life in order to be able to depict it truthfully in works of art, to depict it not scholastically, not dead, not simply as “objective reality,” but to depict reality in its revolutionary development.

At the same time, the truthfulness and historical specificity of the artistic depiction must be combined with the task of ideological reworking and education of working people in the spirit of socialism. This method of fiction and literary criticism is what we call the method of socialist realism.

Our Soviet literature is not afraid of accusations of bias. Yes, Soviet literature is tendentious, because in the era of class struggle there is not and cannot be literature that is not class-based, not biased, supposedly apolitical (applause).

Document

“On the situation in the Union of Soviet Writers”

Secretaries of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks - t.t. STALIN, KAGANOVICH, ANDREEV, ZHDANOV, EZHOV

The current state of the Union of Soviet Writers is extremely alarming. The creative association of writers, designed to politically and organizationally unite the mass of writers and fight for the high ideological and artistic quality of Soviet literature, through the efforts of its current leaders is increasingly turning into a kind of bureaucratic department for literary affairs.

The resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of April 23, 1932 has been virtually ignored by the leadership of the Union over the past two years. The Union does not carry out any serious work with writers. The center of his attention is not the writer and his activities, but mainly only various economic affairs and literary squabbles.

The Union has turned into some kind of huge office, in the depths of which endless meetings take place. Writers who do not want to break away from the Union, due to the incessant bustle of the meeting, have, strictly speaking, no time to write. Things, for example, came to the point that at one of the meetings of the secretariat, Comrade. Stavsky suggested giving the writer Vishnevsky a sabbatical. Vishnevsky, as is known, does not work in any institution and, therefore, “sabbatical” means for him a vacation from endless meetings in the Union.

As a result of such an organization of affairs in the Union, real writers are faced with a dilemma: either they should “work” in the Union, i.e. sit, or write...

The party organization is not united, there are incessant squabbles and bickering. Without trying or not being able to find the right approach to non-party writers, individual communist writers, essentially resurrecting Rappism, are trying to take the path of indiscriminately denigrating non-party people...

Head Department of Press and Publishing of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks

A. NIKITIN

From the Charter of the Writers' Union as amended in 1934 (the charter was edited and changed several times): “The Union of Soviet Writers sets the general goal of creating works of high artistic significance, saturated with the heroic struggle of the international proletariat, the pathos of the victory of socialism, reflecting the great wisdom and heroism of the Communist Party. The Union of Soviet Writers aims to create works of art worthy of the great era of socialism.”

According to the charter as amended in 1971, the Union of Writers of the USSR is “a voluntary public creative organization uniting professional writers of the Soviet Union, participating with their creativity in the struggle for the construction of communism, for social progress, for peace and friendship between peoples.”

The charter defined socialist realism as the main method of Soviet literature and literary criticism, adherence to which was a mandatory condition for membership of the SP.

Organization of the USSR SP

The highest body of the USSR Writers' Union was the Congress of Writers (between 1934 and 1954, contrary to the Charter, it was not convened), which elected the USSR Writers' Board (150 people in 1986), which, in turn, elected the Chairman of the Board (since 1977 - - first secretary) and formed the secretariat of the board (36 people in 1986), which managed the affairs of the joint venture in the period between congresses. The plenum of the board of the joint venture met at least once a year. The board, according to the 1971 Charter, also elected the secretariat bureau, which consisted of about 10 people, while the actual leadership was in the hands of the working secretariat group (about 10 staff positions occupied by administrative workers rather than writers). Yu. N. Verchenko was appointed head of this group in 1986 (until 1991).

The structural divisions of the USSR Writers' Union were regional writers' organizations with a structure similar to the central organization: the Writers' Union of the Union and Autonomous Republics, writers' organizations of regions, territories, and the cities of Moscow and Leningrad.

The printed organs of the USSR SP were “Literary Newspaper”, magazines “New World”, “Znamya”, “Friendship of Peoples”, “Questions of Literature”, “Literary Review”, “Children’s Literature”, “Foreign Literature”, “Youth”, “ Soviet Literature" (published in foreign languages), "Theater", "Sovietish Heyland" (in Yiddish), "Star", "Bonfire".

The board of the USSR Union of Writers was in charge of the publishing house "Soviet Writer", Literary consultation for beginning authors, the All-Union Bureau for the Promotion of Fiction, the Central House of Writers named after. A. A. Fadeeva in Moscow, etc.

Also in the structure of the joint venture there were various divisions that carried out management and control functions. Thus, all foreign trips of members of the joint venture were subject to approval by the foreign commission of the USSR joint venture.

Under the rule of the USSR Writers' Union, the Literary Fund operated; regional writers' organizations also had their own literary funds. The task of the literary funds was to provide members of the joint venture with material support (according to the “rank” of the writer) in the form of housing, construction and maintenance of “writer’s” holiday villages, medical and sanatorium-resort services, provision of vouchers to the “house of writers’ creativity”, provision of personal services, supply of scarce goods and food products.

Membership

Admission to membership in the Writers' Union was made on the basis of an application, to which the recommendations of three members of the joint venture were to be attached. A writer wishing to join the Union had to have two published books and submit reviews of them. The application was considered at a meeting of the local branch of the USSR SP and had to receive at least two-thirds of the votes when voting, then it was considered by the secretariat or the board of the USSR SP and at least half of their votes were required for admission to membership.

The size of the USSR Writers' Union by year (according to the organizing committees of the Union of Writers' congresses):

• 1934-1500 members
• 1954 - 3695
• 1959 - 4801
• 1967 - 6608
• 1971 - 7290
• 1976 - 7942
• 1981 - 8773
• 1986 - 9584
• 1989 - 9920

In 1976, it was reported that of the total number of Union members, 3,665 wrote in Russian.

The writer could be expelled from the Writers' Union "for offenses that undermine the honor and dignity of the Soviet writer" and for "deviating from the principles and tasks formulated in the Charter of the USSR Writers' Union." In practice, reasons for exclusion could include:

• Criticism of the writer from the highest party authorities. An example is the exclusion of M. M. Zoshchenko and A. A. Akhmatova, which followed Zhdanov’s report in August 1946 and the party resolution “On the magazines Zvezda and Leningrad.”
• Publication abroad of works not published in the USSR. B. L. Pasternak was the first to be expelled for this reason for publishing his novel “Doctor Zhivago” in Italy in 1957.
• Publication in samizdat
• There is openly expressed disagreement with the policies of the CPSU and the Soviet state.
• Participation in public speeches (signing open letters) protesting against the persecution of dissidents.

Those expelled from the Writers' Union were denied the publication of books and publications in journals under the jurisdiction of the Union of Writers; they were practically deprived of the opportunity to earn money through literary work. Exclusion from the Union was followed by exclusion from the Literary Fund, entailing tangible financial difficulties. Expulsion from the joint venture for political reasons, as a rule, was widely publicized, sometimes turning into real persecution. In a number of cases, exclusion was accompanied by criminal prosecution under the articles “Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda” and “Dissemination of deliberately false fabrications discrediting the Soviet state and social system”, deprivation of USSR citizenship, and forced emigration.

For political reasons, A. Sinyavsky, Y. Daniel, N. Korzhavin, G. Vladimov, L. Chukovskaya, A. Solzhenitsyn, V. Maksimov, V. Nekrasov, A. Galich, E. Etkind, V. were excluded from the Writers' Union. Voinovich, I. Dzyuba, N. Lukash, Viktor Erofeev, E. Popov, F. Svetov.

In protest against the exclusion of Popov and Erofeev from the joint venture in December 1979, V. Aksenov, I. Lisnyanskaya and S. Lipkin announced their withdrawal from the Union of Writers of the USSR.

Managers

According to the 1934 Charter, the head of the USSR Joint Venture was the Chairman of the Board.

• Alexey Tolstoy (from 1936 to gg.); the actual leadership until 1941 was carried out by the General Secretary of the USSR SP Vladimir Stavsky;
• Alexander Fadeev (from 1938 to and from);
• Nikolai Tikhonov (from 1944 to 1946);

According to the 1977 Charter, the leadership of the Writers' Union was carried out by the First Secretary of the Board. This position was held by:

• Vladimir Karpov (since 1986; resigned in November 1990, but continued to conduct business until August 1991);

SP USSR after the collapse of the USSR

After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the USSR Writers' Union was divided into many organizations in various countries of the post-Soviet space.

The main successors of the USSR Writers' Union in Russia and the CIS are the International Commonwealth of Writers' Unions (which was led by Sergei Mikhalkov for a long time), the Writers' Union of Russia and the Union of Russian Writers.

SP USSR in art

Soviet writers and filmmakers in their work repeatedly turned to the topic of the USSR SP.

• In the novel “The Master and Margarita” by M. A. Bulgakov, under the fictitious name “Massolit,” the Soviet writers’ organization is depicted as an association of opportunists.
• The play by V. Voinovich and G. Gorin “Domestic cat, medium fluffy” is dedicated to the behind-the-scenes side of the activities of the joint venture. Based on the play, K. Voinov made the film “Hat”
• IN essays on literary life“A calf butted with an oak tree” A.I. Solzhenitsyn characterizes the SP of the USSR as one of the main instruments of total party-state control over literary activity in the USSR.

Criticism. Quotes

Notes

see also

• SP RSFSR

Links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia

K: Organizations closed in 1991

Union of Writers of the USSR- organization of professional writers of the USSR.

The union replaced all previously existing organizations of writers: both those united on some ideological or aesthetic platform (RAPP, “Pereval”), and those performing the function of writers’ trade unions (All-Russian Union of Writers, All-Roskomdram).

From the Charter of the Writers' Union as amended in 1934 (the charter was edited and changed several times): “The Union of Soviet Writers sets the general goal of creating works of high artistic significance, saturated with the heroic struggle of the international proletariat, the pathos of the victory of socialism, reflecting the great wisdom and heroism of the Communist Party. The Union of Soviet Writers aims to create works of art worthy of the great era of socialism.”

According to the charter as amended in 1971, the Union of Writers of the USSR is “a voluntary public creative organization uniting professional writers of the Soviet Union, participating with their creativity in the struggle for the construction of communism, for social progress, for peace and friendship between peoples.”

The charter defined socialist realism as the main method of Soviet literature and literary criticism, adherence to which was a mandatory condition for membership of the SP.

Organization of the USSR SP

The board of the USSR Union of Writers was in charge of the publishing house "Soviet Writer", Literary consultation for beginning authors, the All-Union Bureau for the Promotion of Fiction, the Central House of Writers named after. A. A. Fadeeva in Moscow, etc.

Also in the structure of the joint venture there were various divisions that carried out management and control functions. Thus, all foreign trips of members of the Union were subject to approval by the foreign commission of the USSR SP.

Under the rule of the USSR Writers' Union, the Literary Fund operated; regional writers' organizations also had their own literary funds. The task of the literary funds was to provide members of the joint venture with material support (according to the “rank” of the writer) in the form of housing, construction and maintenance of “writer’s” holiday villages, medical and sanatorium-resort services, provision of vouchers to “houses of creativity for writers”, provision of personal services, supply of scarce goods and food products.

Membership

Admission to membership in the Writers' Union was made on the basis of an application, to which the recommendations of three members of the joint venture were to be attached. A writer wishing to join the Union had to have two published books and submit reviews of them. The application was considered at a meeting of the local branch of the USSR SP and had to receive at least two-thirds of the votes when voting, then it was considered by the secretariat or the board of the USSR SP and at least half of their votes were required for admission to membership.

The size of the USSR Writers' Union by year (according to the organizing committees of the Union of Writers' congresses):

• 1934-1500 members
• 1954 - 3695
• 1959 - 4801
• 1967 - 6608
• 1971 - 7290
• 1976 - 7942
• 1981 - 8773
• 1986 - 9584
• 1989 - 9920

In 1976, it was reported that of the total number of members of the Union, 3,665 write in Russian.

The writer could be expelled from the Writers' Union "for offenses that undermine the honor and dignity of the Soviet writer" and for "deviating from the principles and tasks formulated in the Charter of the USSR Writers' Union." In practice, reasons for exclusion could include:

• Criticism of the writer from the highest party authorities. An example is the exclusion of M. M. Zoshchenko and A. A. Akhmatova, which followed Zhdanov’s report in August 1946 and the party resolution “On the magazines Zvezda and Leningrad.”
• Publication abroad of works not published in the USSR. B. L. Pasternak was the first to be expelled for this reason for publishing his novel “Doctor Zhivago” in Italy in 1957.
• Publication in samizdat
• There is openly expressed disagreement with the policies of the CPSU and the Soviet state.
• Participation in public speeches (signing open letters) protesting against the persecution of dissidents.

Those expelled from the Writers' Union were denied the publication of books and publications in journals under the jurisdiction of the Union of Writers; they were practically deprived of the opportunity to earn money through literary work. Expulsion from the Union was followed by exclusion from the Literary Fund, entailing tangible financial difficulties. Expulsion from the joint venture for political reasons, as a rule, was widely publicized, sometimes turning into real persecution. In a number of cases, exclusion was accompanied by criminal prosecution under the articles “Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda” and “Dissemination of deliberately false fabrications discrediting the Soviet state and social system”, deprivation of USSR citizenship, and forced emigration.

For political reasons, A. Sinyavsky, Y. Daniel, N. Korzhavin, G. Vladimov, L. Chukovskaya, A. Solzhenitsyn, V. Maksimov, V. Nekrasov, A. Galich, E. Etkind, V. were excluded from the Writers' Union. Voinovich, I. Dzyuba, N. Lukash, Viktor Erofeev, E. Popov, F. Svetov.

In protest against the exclusion of Popov and Erofeev from the joint venture in December 1979, V. Aksenov, I. Lisnyanskaya and S. Lipkin announced their withdrawal from the Union of Writers of the USSR.

Managers

According to the 1934 Charter, the head of the USSR Joint Venture was the Chairman of the Board.
The first chairman (1934-) of the board of the Union of Writers of the USSR was Maxim Gorky. At the same time, the actual management of the activities of the Union was carried out by the 1st Secretary of the Union, Alexander Shcherbakov.

• Alexey Tolstoy (from 1936 to gg.); the actual leadership until 1941 was carried out by the General Secretary of the USSR SP Vladimir Stavsky;
• Alexander Fadeev (from 1938 to and from);
• Nikolai Tikhonov (from 1944 to 1946);
• Alexey Surkov (from 1954 to gg.);
• Konstantin Fedin (from 1959 to gg.);

According to the 1977 Charter, the leadership of the Writers' Union was carried out by the First Secretary of the Board. This position was held by:

• Georgy Markov (from 1977 to gg.);
• Vladimir Karpov (since 1986; resigned in November 1990, but continued to conduct business until August 1991);

Control by the CPSU

Awards

• On May 20, 1967 he was awarded the Order of Lenin.
• On September 25, 1984 he was awarded the Order of Friendship of Peoples.

SP USSR after the collapse of the USSR

After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the USSR Writers' Union was divided into many organizations in various countries of the post-Soviet space.

The main successors of the USSR Writers' Union in Russia and the CIS are the International Commonwealth of Writers' Unions (which was led by Sergei Mikhalkov for a long time), the Writers' Union of Russia and the Union of Russian Writers.

The basis for dividing the single community of writers of the USSR into two wings (the Union of Writers of Russia (SPR) and the Union of Russian Writers (SWP)) was the “Letter of the 74s”. The SPR included those who were in solidarity with the authors of the “Letter of the 74's”; the SWP included writers, as a rule, of liberal views.

SP USSR in art

Soviet writers and filmmakers in their work repeatedly turned to the topic of the USSR SP.

• In the novel “The Master and Margarita” by M. A. Bulgakov, under the fictitious name “Massolit,” the Soviet writers’ organization is depicted as an association of opportunists.
• The play by V. Voinovich and G. Gorin “Domestic cat, medium fluffy” is dedicated to the behind-the-scenes side of the activities of the joint venture. Based on the play, K. Voinov made the film “Hat”
• IN essays on literary life A.I. Solzhenitsyn characterizes the SP of the USSR as one of the main instruments of total party-state control over literary activity in the USSR.
• In the literary novel “Little Goat in Milk” by Yu. M. Polyakov, events unfold against the backdrop of the activities of the Soviet writers' organization. The idea of ​​the novel is that an organization can make a name for a writer without delving into his work. As for the identification of characters with reality, according to the author, he tried his best to keep future readers of the novel from making false identifications.

Criticism. Quotes

Andrey Malgin, “Letter to a literary friend”:

Address

The board of the Union of Writers of the USSR was located at Povarskaya Street, 52/55 (“Sollogub’s Estate” or “City Estate of the Princes Dolgorukov”).

Write a review about the article "The Writers' Union of the USSR"

Notes

see also

Links

• Union of Writers of the USSR // Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [in 30 volumes] / ch. ed. A. M. Prokhorov. - 3rd ed. - M. : Soviet encyclopedia, 1969-1978.

An excerpt characterizing the Writers' Union of the USSR

Boris did not succeed in marrying a rich bride in St. Petersburg and he came to Moscow for the same purpose. In Moscow, Boris was indecisive between the two richest brides - Julie and Princess Marya. Although Princess Marya, despite her ugliness, seemed more attractive to him than Julie, for some reason he felt awkward courting Bolkonskaya. On her last meeting with her, on the old prince’s name day, to all his attempts to talk to her about feelings, she answered him inappropriately and obviously did not listen to him.
Julie, on the contrary, although in a special way peculiar to her, willingly accepted his courtship.
Julie was 27 years old. After the death of her brothers, she became very rich. She was now completely ugly; but I thought that she was not only just as good, but even much more attractive than she was before. She was supported in this delusion by the fact that, firstly, she became a very rich bride, and secondly, that the older she became, the safer she was for men, the freer it was for men to treat her and, without taking on any obligations, take advantage of her dinners, evenings and the lively company that gathered at her place. A man who ten years ago would have been afraid to go every day to the house where there was a 17-year-old young lady, so as not to compromise her and tie himself down, now went to her boldly every day and treated her not as a young bride, but as a acquaintance who has no gender.
The Karagins' house was the most pleasant and hospitable house in Moscow that winter. In addition to parties and dinners, every day a large company gathered at the Karagins, especially men, who dined at 12 o'clock in the morning and stayed until 3 o'clock. There was no ball, party, or theater that Julie missed. Her toilets were always the most fashionable. But, despite this, Julie seemed disappointed in everything, telling everyone that she did not believe in friendship, nor in love, nor in any joys of life, and expected peace only there. She adopted the tone of a girl who had suffered great disappointment, a girl as if she had lost a loved one or had been cruelly deceived by him. Although nothing of the sort happened to her, they looked at her as if she were one, and she herself even believed that she had suffered a lot in life. This melancholy, which did not prevent her from having fun, did not prevent the young people who visited her from having a pleasant time. Each guest, coming to them, paid his debt to the melancholy mood of the hostess and then engaged in small talk, dancing, mental games, and Burime tournaments, which were in fashion with the Karagins. Only some young people, including Boris, delved deeper into Julie’s melancholic mood, and with these young people she had longer and more private conversations about the vanity of everything worldly, and to them she opened her albums covered with sad images, sayings and poems.
Julie was especially kind to Boris: she regretted his early disappointment in life, offered him those consolations of friendship that she could offer, having suffered so much in life, and opened her album to him. Boris drew two trees in her album and wrote: Arbres rustiques, vos sombres rameaux secouent sur moi les tenebres et la melancolie. [Rural trees, your dark branches shake off darkness and melancholy on me.]
Elsewhere he drew a picture of a tomb and wrote:
"La mort est secourable et la mort est tranquille
“Ah! contre les douleurs il n"y a pas d"autre asile".
[Death is salutary and death is calm;
ABOUT! against suffering there is no other refuge.]
Julie said it was lovely.
“II y a quelque chose de si ravissant dans le sourire de la melancolie, [There is something infinitely charming in the smile of melancholy," she said to Boris word for word, copying this passage from the book.
– C"est un rayon de lumiere dans l"ombre, une nuance entre la douleur et le desespoir, qui montre la consolation possible. [This is a ray of light in the shadows, a shade between sadness and despair, which indicates the possibility of consolation.] - To this Boris wrote her poetry:
"Aliment de poison d"une ame trop sensible,
"Toi, sans qui le bonheur me serait impossible,
"Tendre melancolie, ah, viens me consoler,
“Viens calmer les tourments de ma sombre retraite
"Et mele une douceur secrete
"A ces pleurs, que je sens couler."
[Poisonous food for an overly sensitive soul,
You, without whom happiness would be impossible for me,
Tender melancholy, oh, come and comfort me,
Come, soothe the torment of my dark solitude
And add secret sweetness
To these tears that I feel flowing.]
Julie played Boris the saddest nocturnes on the harp. Boris read Poor Liza aloud to her and more than once interrupted his reading from the excitement that took his breath away. Meeting in a large society, Julie and Boris looked at each other as the only indifferent people in the world who understood each other.
Anna Mikhailovna, who often went to the Karagins, making up her mother’s party, meanwhile made correct inquiries about what was given for Julie (both Penza estates and Nizhny Novgorod forests were given). Anna Mikhailovna, with devotion to the will of Providence and tenderness, looked at the refined sadness that connected her son with the rich Julie.
“Toujours charmante et melancolique, cette chere Julieie,” she said to her daughter. - Boris says that he rests his soul in your house. “He has suffered so many disappointments and is so sensitive,” she told her mother.
“Oh, my friend, how attached I have become to Julie lately,” she said to her son, “I can’t describe to you!” And who can not love her? This is such an unearthly creature! Ah, Boris, Boris! “She fell silent for a minute. “And how I feel sorry for her maman,” she continued, “today she showed me reports and letters from Penza (they have a huge estate) and she is poor, all alone: ​​she is so deceived!
Boris smiled slightly as he listened to his mother. He meekly laughed at her simple-minded cunning, but listened and sometimes asked her carefully about the Penza and Nizhny Novgorod estates.
Julie had long been expecting a proposal from her melancholic admirer and was ready to accept it; but some secret feeling of disgust for her, for her passionate desire to get married, for her unnaturalness, and a feeling of horror at renouncing the possibility of true love still stopped Boris. His vacation was already over. He spent whole days and every single day with the Karagins, and every day, reasoning with himself, Boris told himself that he would propose tomorrow. But in the presence of Julie, looking at her red face and chin, almost always covered with powder, at her moist eyes and at the expression of her face, which always expressed a readiness to immediately move from melancholy to the unnatural delight of marital happiness, Boris could not utter a decisive word: despite the fact that for a long time in his imagination he considered himself the owner of Penza and Nizhny Novgorod estates and distributed the use of income from them. Julie saw Boris's indecisiveness and sometimes the thought occurred to her that she was disgusting to him; but immediately the woman’s self-delusion came to her as a consolation, and she told herself that he was shy only out of love. Her melancholy, however, began to turn into irritability, and not long before Boris left, she undertook a decisive plan. At the same time that Boris's vacation was ending, Anatol Kuragin appeared in Moscow and, of course, in the Karagins' living room, and Julie, unexpectedly leaving her melancholy, became very cheerful and attentive to Kuragin.
“Mon cher,” Anna Mikhailovna said to her son, “je sais de bonne source que le Prince Basile envoie son fils a Moscou pour lui faire epouser Julieie.” [My dear, I know from reliable sources that Prince Vasily sends his son to Moscow in order to marry him to Julie.] I love Julie so much that I would feel sorry for her. What do you think, my friend? - said Anna Mikhailovna.
The thought of being a fool and wasting this whole month of difficult melancholy service under Julie and seeing all the income from the Penza estates already allocated and properly used in his imagination in the hands of another - especially in the hands of the stupid Anatole, offended Boris. He went to the Karagins with the firm intention of proposing. Julie greeted him with a cheerful and carefree look, casually talked about how much fun she had at yesterday's ball, and asked when he was leaving. Despite the fact that Boris came with the intention of talking about his love and therefore intended to be gentle, he irritably began to talk about women's inconstancy: how women can easily move from sadness to joy and that their mood depends only on who looks after them. Julie was offended and said that it was true that a woman needs variety, that everyone will get tired of the same thing.
“For this, I would advise you...” Boris began, wanting to tell her a caustic word; but at that very moment the offensive thought came to him that he could leave Moscow without achieving his goal and losing his work for nothing (which had never happened to him). He stopped in the middle of his speech, lowered his eyes so as not to see her unpleasantly irritated and indecisive face and said: “I didn’t come here at all to quarrel with you.” On the contrary...” He glanced at her to make sure he could continue. All her irritation suddenly disappeared, and her restless, pleading eyes were fixed on him with greedy expectation. “I can always arrange it so that I rarely see her,” thought Boris. “And the work has begun and must be done!” He blushed, looked up at her and told her: “You know my feelings for you!” There was no need to say any more: Julie’s face shone with triumph and self-satisfaction; but she forced Boris to tell her everything that is said in such cases, to say that he loves her, and has never loved any woman more than her. She knew that she could demand this for the Penza estates and Nizhny Novgorod forests and she got what she demanded.
The bride and groom, no longer remembering the trees that showered them with darkness and melancholy, made plans for the future arrangement of a brilliant house in St. Petersburg, made visits and prepared everything for a brilliant wedding.

Count Ilya Andreich arrived in Moscow at the end of January with Natasha and Sonya. The Countess was still unwell and could not travel, but it was impossible to wait for her recovery: Prince Andrei was expected to go to Moscow every day; in addition, it was necessary to purchase a dowry, it was necessary to sell the property near Moscow, and it was necessary to take advantage of the presence of the old prince in Moscow to introduce him to his future daughter-in-law. The Rostovs' house in Moscow was not heated; in addition, they arrived for a short time, the countess was not with them, and therefore Ilya Andreich decided to stay in Moscow with Marya Dmitrievna Akhrosimova, who had long offered her hospitality to the count.
Late in the evening, four of the Rostovs' carts drove into Marya Dmitrievna's yard in the old Konyushennaya. Marya Dmitrievna lived alone. She has already married off her daughter. Her sons were all in the service.
She still held herself straight, she also spoke directly, loudly and decisively to everyone her opinion, and with her whole being she seemed to reproach other people for all sorts of weaknesses, passions and hobbies, which she did not recognize as possible. From early morning in the kutsaveyka, she did housework, then went: on holidays to mass and from mass to prisons and prisons, where she had business that she did not tell anyone about, and on weekdays, after getting dressed, she received petitioners of different classes at home who came to her every day, and then had lunch; There were always about three or four guests at the hearty and tasty dinner; after dinner I made a round of Boston; At night she forced herself to read newspapers and new books, and she knitted. She rarely made exceptions for trips, and if she did, she went only to the most important people in the city.
She had not yet gone to bed when the Rostovs arrived, and the door on the block in the hall squealed, letting in the Rostovs and their servants who were coming in from the cold. Marya Dmitrievna, with glasses down on her nose, throwing her head back, stood in the doorway of the hall and looked at those entering with a stern, angry look. One would have thought that she was embittered against the visitors and would now throw them out, if at this time she had not given careful orders to people on how to accommodate the guests and their things.
- Counts? “Bring it here,” she said, pointing to the suitcases and not greeting anyone. - Young ladies, this way to the left. Well, why are you fawning! – she shouted at the girls. - Samovar to warm you up! “She’s plumper and prettier,” she said, pulling Natasha, flushed from the cold, by her hood. - Ugh, cold! “Undress quickly,” she shouted at the count, who wanted to approach her hand. - Cold, I guess. Serve some rum for tea! Sonyushka, bonjour,” she said to Sonya, highlighting her slightly contemptuous and affectionate attitude towards Sonya with this French greeting.
When everyone, having undressed and recovered from the road, came to tea, Marya Dmitrievna kissed everyone in order.
“I’m glad with my soul that they came and that they stopped with me,” she said. “It’s high time,” she said, looking significantly at Natasha... “the old man is here and they are expecting their son any day now.” We must, we must meet him. Well, we’ll talk about that later,” she added, looking at Sonya with a look that showed that she didn’t want to talk about it in front of her. “Now listen,” she turned to the count, “what do you need tomorrow?” Who will you send for? Shinshina? – she bent one finger; - crybaby Anna Mikhailovna? - two. She's here with her son. My son is getting married! Then Bezukhova? And he's here with his wife. He ran away from her, and she ran after him. He dined with me on Wednesday. Well, as for them - she pointed to the young ladies - tomorrow I’ll take them to Iverskaya, and then we’ll go to Ober Shelme. After all, you will probably do everything new? Don't take it from me, these days it's sleeves, that's what! The other day, the young Princess Irina Vasilievna came to see me: I was afraid to look, as if she had put two barrels on her hands. After all, today the day is a new fashion. So what are you doing? – she turned sternly to the count.
“Everything suddenly came together,” answered the count. - To buy rags, and then there is a buyer for the Moscow region and for the house. If you're so kind, I'll find some time, go to Marinskoye for a day, and show you my girls.
- Okay, okay, I’ll be intact. It’s like in the Board of Trustees. “I’ll take them where they need to go, scold them, and caress them,” said Marya Dmitrievna, touching the cheek of her favorite and goddaughter Natasha with her big hand.

The organization is incomparably more massive than the notorious RAAP - Russian Association of Proletarian Writers, dispersed in 1932. RAPP divided all writers into proletarians and fellow travelers, assigning the latter a purely technical role: they can teach the proletarians formal skills and go either to remelting, that is, to production, or to reforging, that is, to labor camps. Stalin focused precisely on his fellow travelers, because the course towards restoring the empire - with the oblivion of all the international and ultra-revolutionary slogans of the twenties - was already obvious. Fellow travelers - writers of the old school, who recognized the Bolsheviks precisely because only they were able to keep Russia from collapse and save it from occupation - perked up.

A new writers' union was required - on the one hand, something like a trade union dealing with apartments, cars, dachas, treatment, resorts, and on the other, an intermediary between the ordinary writer and the party customer. Gorky was involved in organizing this union throughout 1933.

From August 17 to 31, its first congress was held in the Hall of Columns of the former Assembly of the Nobility, now the House of Unions. The main speaker was Bukharin, whose emphasis on culture, technology and a certain pluralism was well known; his appointment as the main speaker of the congress indicated a clear liberalization of literary policy. Gorky took the floor several times, mainly in order to emphasize again and again: we still do not know how to show a new person, he is unconvincing, we do not know how to talk about achievements! He was especially delighted by the presence at the congress of the national poet Suleiman Stalsky, a Dagestan ashug in a worn robe and a gray shabby hat. Gorky took a photo with him - he and Stalsky were the same age; in general, during the congress, Gorky photographed very intensively with its guests, old workers, young paratroopers, metro workers (almost did not pose with the writers, this had its own principle).

Separately, it is worth mentioning the attacks on Mayakovsky, which were heard in Gorky’s speech: he condemned the already dead Mayakovsky for his dangerous influence, for his lack of realism, for his excess of hyperbole - apparently, Gorky’s enmity towards him was not personal, but ideological.

The first congress of writers was widely and enthusiastically covered in the press, and Gorky had every reason to be proud of his long-standing plan - to create a writers' organization that would show writers how and what to do, and at the same time provide for their livelihood. Gorky’s own letters during these years contain a sea of ​​ideas and advice, which he gives out with the generosity of a sower: write a book about how people make the weather! The history of religions and church predatory attitude towards the flock! The history of literature of small nations! Writers are not happy enough, they need to be more fun, brighter, more excited! This constant call to joy can be understood in two ways. Maybe he was talking about his own horror at what was happening, but in none of his essays from this time there is a shadow of horror, or even doubt about the unconditional triumph of justice in the vastness of the Union of Soviets. One delight. So another reason is probably that the literature of the thirties never learned to lie talentedly - and if it did lie, it was very mediocre; Gorky was sincerely perplexed when he saw this. He was, oddly enough, extremely far from the life that most Russian writers lived, not to mention the people about whom they wrote; His ideas about this life were drawn mainly from newspapers, and his mail, apparently, was strictly controlled by the secretary we already knew