I know that everyone is probably sick of discussing Soviet Russia, but I think the concept ot Stakhanovism is very interesting. In the 1920s, the Bolshevik party had already began to design a cult of the worker. Soviet propaganda posters and novels (also aimed at indoctrination through the promotion of literacy) such as Cement by Fyodor Gladkov ennobled the common worker. An entire movement of art was designed and promoted by the intelligentsia to help progress the notion of the soviet worker (soviet realism). But, what motives inspired Stalin to endorse the Stkahanovite movement, and was it beneficial to the Soviet economy and communist doctrine in general?
Several motives spurred the Stakhanovite movement. There were growing labor and production shortages within the Soviet Union. Stalin desired to industrialize at a more rapid rate to gain equal standing with other world powers, and arguably more importantly, he saw increased militarization of both western (Germany) and eastern (Japan) powers (both of which had engaged Russian in conflict within the past thirty years). Increased productivity of all industries would be needed during a war effort. Stalin could have also seen the Stakhanovite movement as a strengthening of the cult of the common worker initiated by Lenin in the 1920s.
In practice, Stakhanovism was, for the most part, ineffective. Local industries were unable to supply adequate materials for factories despite mandates from above, bottle-necking invovled with distribution occurred, and quotas set to high were often unattainable. But, was Stakhanovism concurrent with Leninist doctrine (by this time Stalin had already created the cult of Lenin in Soviet society)? On the positive side, workers were now able to openly criticize supervisors, and Stakhanovites often advocated the betterment of all workers with their statements and opinions, but increases in wages brought about tensions within the strata of workers. It can be argued that the glorification of the Stakhanovites set up a class within an allegedly classless society. Thurston would disagree with this claim (with merit), but even if it did not create a class of elite workers, it did ignite distinctions between existing classes of workers.
In all industries, there were tiers of workers. The common, uneducated workers were now at a position to make demands and criticize their superiors (foremen, managers, engineers, etc.) By increasing the pay and influence of some elite workers (sometimes to the point where their bonuses exceeded the salaries of superiors) the Stakhanovite movement alientated tiers within the working class. It can be argued that Lenin would have allowed this (the NEP provided incentives for farmers in the rural areas), but if he did allow this, it would have been with great reluctance (as it was with the NEP incentives). I believe that the Stakhanovite movement veered greatly (though greatly disguised) from communist doctrine. While reflecting this, could the movement have been a ploy to initiate and continue Stalin's purges?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Rites of War
I thought the Modris Eckstein excerpt was especially interesting because it addresses the new atrocities of modern warfare that were introduced during the first stage of the war. Eckstein then further proposes that these "advancements" (for lack of a better term) were the product of the "revolutionary" ideology prevalent in Germany prior to and during the war.
According to Eckstein, Germany was the first to make effective use of trench warfare, gaseous warfare, the flamethrower, its infamous U-boat warfare, and the concept of Schreklichkeit (though it could be argued that the British were just as inhumane towards civilians during the Boer War), and, in so doing, drastically elevated modern warfare into what many critics claimed to be an inhumane level. By 1916, British and French troops were also utilizing gases and flamethrowers (though the latter was not used to the extent) and had successfully adopted strategies of defense (which appeared to be, for obvious reasons, more successful then attempting to storm across "no man's land" to break enemy lines).
However, it is important to note that these strategies that revolutionized the way future conflicts would be fought also appeared to have had negative effects on the German war effort. On the international level, many denounced the use of the unnecessarily viscious flamethrowers, and opposed the notion that gases were more humane than traditional weapons, but, more importantly, the "Rape of Belgium" was a rallying cry for the British, as was the Lusitania for the United States. It could be argued that Germany's "total war" tactics were most effective in losing Germany the war.
The vivid decriptions in this excerpt also jolted my memory to the many artists who were influenced by the atrocities of trench warfare. T.S. Eliot, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, Henry James, and others are going to be greatly affected by the experiences and descriptions of World War I. T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" is going to directly pertain to the Great War, but all of these individuals are going to deal with a question that begins to develop prior to the war, but rises to its zenith after conflict has ended and the barbarities have been observed: where is man's place in the modern world? This "modern dillemma" is going to greatly influence the arts, and go so far as to force many citizens (the Lost Generation) to become willing expatriates. Though World War I inspired many of these thinkers and artists in future endeavors, I would like to hear opinions on to what extent the war influenced the modern movement in the arts.
According to Eckstein, Germany was the first to make effective use of trench warfare, gaseous warfare, the flamethrower, its infamous U-boat warfare, and the concept of Schreklichkeit (though it could be argued that the British were just as inhumane towards civilians during the Boer War), and, in so doing, drastically elevated modern warfare into what many critics claimed to be an inhumane level. By 1916, British and French troops were also utilizing gases and flamethrowers (though the latter was not used to the extent) and had successfully adopted strategies of defense (which appeared to be, for obvious reasons, more successful then attempting to storm across "no man's land" to break enemy lines).
However, it is important to note that these strategies that revolutionized the way future conflicts would be fought also appeared to have had negative effects on the German war effort. On the international level, many denounced the use of the unnecessarily viscious flamethrowers, and opposed the notion that gases were more humane than traditional weapons, but, more importantly, the "Rape of Belgium" was a rallying cry for the British, as was the Lusitania for the United States. It could be argued that Germany's "total war" tactics were most effective in losing Germany the war.
The vivid decriptions in this excerpt also jolted my memory to the many artists who were influenced by the atrocities of trench warfare. T.S. Eliot, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, Henry James, and others are going to be greatly affected by the experiences and descriptions of World War I. T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" is going to directly pertain to the Great War, but all of these individuals are going to deal with a question that begins to develop prior to the war, but rises to its zenith after conflict has ended and the barbarities have been observed: where is man's place in the modern world? This "modern dillemma" is going to greatly influence the arts, and go so far as to force many citizens (the Lost Generation) to become willing expatriates. Though World War I inspired many of these thinkers and artists in future endeavors, I would like to hear opinions on to what extent the war influenced the modern movement in the arts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)