THE
BATTLE AROUND "NOVY MIR"
By George Saunders
"We have listened with close attention to criticism of our work, and shall in the future, but only if that criticism flows from the highest concepts of literature in a socialist society, literature worthy of the great traditions of Russian realisn bequeathed us by the classics. From such criticism we are ready to hear out the sharpest, most outspoken remarks."
These are the words of Alexander Tvardovsky, editor of the Soviet literary monthly Novy Mir and leading spokesman of the liberal intellectuals. They appeared in Literaturnaya Gazeta (March 8) in the context of a report on Novy Mir's publication plans for the "jubilee year" of 1967 -- fiftieth anniversary of the 1917 revolutions. But they had implications far beyond just the manner of commemorating the anniversary.
Novy Mir, and therefore the current of Soviet opinion that it represents, has been under considerable attack from the official establishment of late. Twardovsky's words can be taken as a rather stiff-necked reply to some rough blows leveled at Novy Mir since the turn of the year.
Two of Tvardovsky's close co-workers, B. Zaks and A. Dementiev, were reported fired in early March from their jobs as assistant editors of Novy Mir. They were apparently made scapegoats for an attempt to publish the war memoirs of Konstantin Simonov in the December issue. Simonov, a novelist and poet who has written much on the war, reportedly criticized Stalin's military policies in the memoirs. The publication of the December Novy Mir was held up a long time, Simonov's memoirs were removed, and finally Zaks and Dementiev were fired.
There had been rumors over the past year that Tvwardovsky himself would be removed from his editorship. The Brezhnev-Kosygin leadership is on the march against the ideological dissent that spread quite far in the Khrushchev era, and Novy Mir's editorial policies stand in the way. (Briefly, those policies have been to examine critically the Stalin era and to expose bureaucratic ills and abuses in present day Soviet society.)
However, if the bureaucratic leadership team wishes to liquidate the institutions of de-Stalinization, it also feels obliged to do so with caution and by a circuitous route. Rather than take over the bastion of the liberal intellectuals outright and change its editorial policies, they put pressure on it, snipe away at secondary figures, not the chief one, and leave the way open for "self-modification."
The kind of pressure being put on was illustrated in January when a group of Soviet generals blasted Novy Mir (in the Defense Ministry paper, Krasnaya Zvezda [Red Star], January 22). Historical truth had been twisted, they claimed, in memoirs about the first Nazi air attack on Moscow, printed in Novy Mir for September 1966. The memoirs had charged poor organization of the antiaircraft defense of the Soviet capital at that time.
Within a week of the generals' attack, Pravda (January 27) chided the liberal journal for "focusing attention on negative aspects of life" and for mocking literature that tries to inspire "patriotism" in its readers. Pravda at the same time gave a slap on the wrist to the neo-Stalinist journal Oktyabr', edited by the leading spokesman of the conservative writers, V. Kochetov. Oktyabr' zealously promotes patriotism but, Pravda charged, fails to comprehend the trend toward greater "democracy" in Soviet life. The slap at Oktyabr' was in all likelihood meant as a cover-up, to make the drive against Novy Mir look “impartial."
It cannot be excluded, in fact, that the removal of Tvardovsky himself is being prepared. In the past he has not been immune from “administrative measures." He was not elected a delegate to the Twenty-third Congress. last March (as he had been to the Twenty-first Congress and to the strongly anti-Stalin Twenty-second Congress, where he made a vigorous plea for greater leeway for Soviet writers, in the interests of improving the quality of Soviet literature). Moreover, he was dropped as a candidate member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist party after the Twenty-third ongress.
At the congress itself, Novy Mir and the organ of rebel youth writers, Yunost, had been subjected to repeated denunciations for "ideological defects." And a play by Tvardovsky, a satire against Stalinist bureaucratism, had been pointedly suspended from the boards of the Moscow Theater of Satire for the duration of the congress,
although it was allowed to resume afterward.
A war of words continued through 1966 as Tvardovsky several times reaffirmed the policy of his journal and as Novy Mir continued to follow that policy, bringing out controversial works that were blasted time and again by other sections of the Soviet press. For example, at the Twenty-third Congress a party bureaucrat, one Vasily I. Konotop, had declared:
"Some recently published works of literature, especially in the pages of journals like Novy Mir and Yunost...give a distorted picture of our Soviet life, revel in depicting some shortcomings and difficulties, cultivate skepticism and apolitical thinking, and deliberately show officials in conflict with workers." (Emphasis added.)
Novy Mir openly defied the stricture against showing conflict between workers and officials in its July issue. That issue contained an article describing conditions in the newly discovered West Siberian oil fields of the Tiumen region, where oil production is expected to equal that of the giant Azerbaijani fields by the end of the current five-year plan. The article deplored the abominable living conditions provided for workers producing this vast social wealth, and contrasted the relative comfort which production officials and party bureaucrats have provided for themselves on the rough Siberian frontier. Such is the "unpatriotic" spirit promoted by this wayward Soviet journal.
The issue of "patriotism" is in fact a big one in the dispute over Novy Mir. The Soviet party has engaged in a major campaign since the Twenty-third Congress to educate the youth along "military-patriotic" lines, instilling a spirit of chauvinism aimed at hushing up the ideological divergencies that had developed, especially among the youth, in the post-Stalin era [See the discussion of this campaign by Sandro Mantovani in World Outlook March 17, p. 291.]
The fiftieth anniversary celebrations fit very well into this campaign: youth caravans and marches to historic revolutionary sites are being planned in a spirit of nationalistic self-glorification. (This has little in common with the great internationalist revolutionary break with the world capitalist system made under Lenin's and Trotsky's leadership in October 1917.) In the eyes of the bureaucrats, Novy Mir's undue stress on the Stalin era in Soviet history and preoccupation with "negative sides" of life today undermine the good, narrow patriotic spirit. Thus Novy Mir's plans for the year's commemorations are a matter of concern.
Here is Tvardovsky's answer:
"For a literary journal, an organ of the Writers Union of the USSR, the best way of celebrating this glorious anniversary, it would seem, is to present artistically significant works of prose and poetry -- not flash-in-the-pan books, which remain lightweight stuff of only passing interest, even though they correspond in external respects to the date being celebrated. The best way is to present works that are written seriously and in a way that will last. This is what would best attest to the high level of intellectual culture attained in our society during the half-century of Soviet power." (Literaturnaya Gazeta, March 8.)
Tvardovsky and the critical-minded Soviet intellectuals he represents are not revolutionary opponents of the bureaucratic regime, nor do they question the basic premises of bureaucratic rule. They are concerned for reform and improvement substantially within the existing government structure. And while the grievances of the masses do find indirect expression in their work, the intellectual's feeling of protest centers primarily on intellectual issues. Thus Novy Mir's policy of presenting reality "in all its complexity, in its real contradictions and movements" is justified by the argument that a "schematized" (propagandist) version of reality is not...good art!
Tvardovsky and those who think like him are rightly concerned about the cultural level attained over the past half century. The Russian revolution and Soviet society have not stood out thus far in the sphere of human cultural attainments -- largely owing to the stultifying influence of the jealous, suspicious, and narrow-minded bureaucracy. What the supporters of Novy Mir want is to unfetter and develop the great cultural potential that exists in Soviet society. But in terms of the revivification of the great Russian Revolution that is still only a limited aim.
Book Review
RUSSIAN LIFE 50