Homo Sovieticus - Creation of the New Soviet Man - COLD WAR DOCUMENTARY
In its idealistic form, the creation of the Soviet Union was an attempt to build a new society. The experiment aimed to create new societal norms, new ways to produce goods, new ways to educate and live and so on. But it also aimed bigger; not just rebuilding a new society but creating a new type of person, the New Soviet Man. I’m your host David and this week, we are going to look at this attempt, what started as the New Soviet man but later evolved into the pejorative known as Homo Sovieticus. This is…the Cold War. If you are like me, life is busy; kids, school, work, activities..it can be tricky as a family to
find time to spend time together but mealtime is the perfect opportunity to do just that. Which is why I am thrilled to be working with HelloFresh, the sponsor of today’s video! HelloFresh delivers fresh, quality produce from the farm right to your door in less than a week, which lets you enjoy the delicious flavours of the season right in your home. And the recipes are great! HelloFresh’s newest menu release has a great Mediterranean theme including fresh fruit and veg, nuts, olive oils and whole grains for a nourishing and best of all delicious balanced meal! HelloFresh also lets me not only skip the grocery store but makes weeknights easier and fun as my wife and I can prepare the fool-proof, step-by-step recipes together, often in 30 minutes or less! And what I really love about HelloFresh is their commitment to stability; they are the first carbon-neutral meal kit company with almost all of the packaging being recyclable and the pre-portioned ingredients means less food waste too. Use my link or go to hellofresh.com and use code POGTCWSEPT16 for 16 FREE MEALS across 7 boxes + 3 surprise gifts!
So, the Soviet Union was created by revolution and was intended to live its life as a revolutionary state. Especially in its early years, it set about trying to destroy the old ways of doing things and replacing them with new and modern methodologies. Experimentation became a new norm, often because the Soviet Union was the first state of its kind and there was no guide to follow; new rules and procedures had to be created to see if they would work. Included in these experiments were not only reforming methods of education, administration, healthcare, economy, military and other areas of state but how to create a New Soviet Man. But how was this to be done? Soviet ideology, as I am sure you are all aware, was based on the teachings of Marxism.
These covered the principles of class struggle, of internationalism, of historical materialism and so on, forming the key pillars of ideology. But, Marxism didn’t cover and discuss EVERYTHING, so lots of interpretation and extrapolation had to happen. Marx and Engels did talk about how the proletariat would not only change the world but would also give rise to a New Man of the future, one who would be multi-talented and socially-conscious as well as who enjoyed helping others and had been freed from having a specialisation forced on them by the system. “The Communist man of the future will be able to “Hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner…without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic” But, none of Marx’s work discussed what this new human of the future world of social justice would actually be like in any depth or detail. This was left to the imaginations of Bolshevik leaders and ideologues. Naturally, no uniform interpretation or conclusion was ever reached. Opinions ranged from an individualist New Man to
a complete collectivist, from a socially and politically perfect man to one that was also considered to be physically impeccable. And, as you might expect, the idealised characteristics of the New Man changed over time, depending on the political realities in the Soviet Union at the time. For example, Trotsky as one of the primary early ideologues of the Soviet Union, suggested that people had to work hard to pave the way for the emergence of the “harmonious citizen of the commune”. This recognized the Soviet citizen at the time as being transitionary
and would need to actively develop their physical and spiritual capabilities by being both well read and well connected with revolutionaries abroad as well as being free of religious and nationalist prejudices. They would also need to be well connected to the working class and be smart and strong willed but also not afraid of inflicting violence whenever necessary. Trotsky even went so far as to describe the physical appearance of the perfect revolutionary: thin, small, very confident and calm but nervous from time to time with an occasional smile. In fact, Comrade Trotsky seemed to be describing himself! But Trotsky wasn’t the only one to share their ideas of the ideal New Soviet Man. Anatoly Lunacharsky, the first People's Commissar of Education saw the New Soviet Man as “a universal and a free individual, preoccupied with the goals of society”.
According to Lunacharsky, the New Man had to be ready to sacrifice himself for society and that “it is not enough to die for these goals - we demand more: we demand living with these goals, living every hour of their lives”. The New Man would need to be persuasive and hard-working with a spirit of solidarity. Lunacharsky also echoed Marx and Engels, emphasising the universality of the individual stating “they should have their own speciality, they should know their job, but they should also be interested and be capable of entering any field of knowledge”. He also believed that the New Man should be “‘a man of honour’, The notion of honour should be developed from early ages…if a boy or girl are lying, if they are preventing a collective work, if they inflict violence as the powerful against the weaker, if they have been antisemitic, they should feel ashamed in front of their comrades for their unworthy deeds as members of these collective.”
Now, despite propagating collectivism, Lunacharsly also recognized that the New Man was free in their own personal choices, as long as they did not harm collective work and societal harmony, stating that the New Man “creates their environment, their philosophical beliefs, their family and domestic life in an absolutely individual way. If this leads to great diversity - even better. This great diversity is never going to turn into chaos, because interests will not be clashing, since people are mostly going to be brothers and colleagues”. And of course, Lunacharsky also commented on the expected physical transformation of the New Man; they would be turned into “fighter-titans”, capable of transforming the earth. This notion of the transformation of nature and the victory of man over the environment is actually a common trope expounded on by other Bolshevik leaders and ideologues. Bukharin noted that after the victory of communism, “the tyranny of nature over man will have vanished”.
Trotsky said that under communism “Man will occupy himself with re-registering mountains and rivers, and will earnestly and repeatedly make improvements in nature in its entirety, with its grouse and its sturgeons. He will point out places for mountains and for passes. He will change the course of the rivers and will lay down the rules for the oceans.” This type of attitude and approach towards the environment, as something to be mastered and controlled, although certainly not unique to the USSR, would be a contributing factor to the environmental disasters that would emerge later in the Soviet Union.
Another of the common beliefs of what a communist transformation of society would bring is massive technological advancements, to the point that human-built machines would allow the automatization of many aspects of life. The Soviet urban planner Leonid Sabsovich believed that under communism everything would be mechanised and domestic chores would be done by machines. Sergey Kirov wrote in 1922 that the future Soviet society would be “capable of embellishing their wretched earth with monuments, such as our enemies could never imagine, even in their dreams”. The prominent Marxist intellectual Alexander Bogdanov, himself an opponent of the Soviet government, believed that the Communist transformation would ultimately lead to the ability to physically resurrect humans from death and bring about immortality. The Soviet diplomat Leonid Krasin, called for the mummification of Lenin’s body so that he could be resurrected once the scientific and technological progress had achieved the ability to do so.
So, from all this, there certainly appears to be an emphasis on the skills and appearance of the individual but this shouldn’t be taken as the primary belief. The New Soviet Man was to be viewed as an essential element of the single Soviet mechanism. As part of the collective, they would advance the pursuit of the perfect egalitarian community of the future. Bogdanov saw the New Man as something resembling a cell, a part of the largest living organism which was Communist Society. Without the larger organism, the cell could not survive, but conversely,
the organism could not survive without the cell. These ideas were reiterated by the Soviet revolutionary, Alexandra Kollontai who claimed, “Only in the new social labour order, in which the concern of society will be directed to the creation of conditions favourable to the flourishing of personality, will the social atmosphere be formed in which the realisation of the higher moral person, now inaccessible to us, will be possible”. We should take the opportunity to note here that the term New Soviet Man in the Russian language, Noviy Sovietsky Chelovek, or just Noviy Chelovek, is not gender specific although usually did apply to men. But this didn’t stop opinions being espoused regarding the New Soviet Woman as well. Kollontai emphasises that this New Woman would be about self-discipline over emotionalism and personal liberty over submission to men and other societal norms. She called on women to assert themselves and emerge from the shadows of their husbands or fathers, to become their own individuals. A consensus emerged; that women should and
would take on an equal part of the work of the collective as men did. As well, that they should reject the oppressive norms of the past and simply be on equal footing with men. Women like Kollontai, Esther Frumkin, and Nadezhda Krupskaya emerged as the image of the New Soviet Woman. And
this was an image that was promulgated. In this 1930 cartoon from Izvestia, a woman is depicted driving a tractor over kitchen appliances, which themselves have the script “Old Ways” written on them. This New Woman was to be seen as an equal member of society, to the extent that many of the characteristics ascribed to the New Man were intended to be applied to the New Woman as well.
So this was what was SUPPOSED to happen, but as you can probably guess, it didn’t come to be. Long-time viewers of this channel will already know what I’m about to say happened…Stalin happened. Stalin was decisively more conservative than the rivals he overcame to secure power after Lenin’s death, including of course Trotsky. Stalin, as a conservative, looked to end the experimentations and the clash of ideas that had characterised the 1920s, instead wanting to introduce a more down-to-earth, realistic, and centralised definition of the collectivist New Soviet Man Historian Jay Bergman has described Stalin’s New Soviet Man as “a heroic, energetic, wilful and childlike naif, whose willingness to take risks and to defy conventional wisdom was only exceeded by his blind devotion to Stalin”. Berman argues, based on the groups
praised in the Soviet press, that Stalin saw the new Soviet Man being an industrial worker who worked overtime and bested the existing quota, as well as aviators, mountaineers, parachutists and long-distance skiers, for example. These were all men who could break both national and international records and therefore bring prestige and glory to the Soviet Union. The science historian Slava Gerovitch has argued that Stalin saw the Soviet citizen as “a necessary, but ultimately subservient and replaceable part” of the Soviet state. This of course was echoed in a part of his June 1945 toast to the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War when he lauded the Soviet citizen as “the little cogs of a grand state mechanism”. For Stalin, a Soviet citizen was to strive to improve their productivity and be good members of the collective. This stood in contrast to earlier ideas which emphasised the independence
of the individual. Stalinism also emphasised that the New Soviet Man wasn’t something that needed to be created but was rather already a part of society, setting examples for others to follow. As you might expect, Stalin’s vision for the New Soviet Woman was also more conservative than had been expressed in the 1920s and the direction he set ended any debate over the role of the Soviet family. Women were still encouraged to work; production needs demanded it really, but women were also encouraged to give birth. 1936 saw abortion, which had been legalized
after the revolution, recriminalized. Stalin, convinced of the upcoming war with capitalism, knew that the defence of the Soviet Union required more manpower. The Great Patriotic War proved and solidified this position, even seeing the creation of the title of Mother Heroine for women who gave birth to and raised 10 or more children. Khrushchev, not to be outdone, also made his mark on the evolution of the New Soviet man, proposing a set of rules. These rules were adopted during the 22nd Party Congress as the Moral Code
of the Builder of Communism and were essentially the commandments of the Soviet citizen, the rules of a communist of the Cold War era. 1. Loyalty to Communism, and love of the socialist Motherland and other socialist countries. 2. Conscious work for the good of the society: One who doesn't work, doesn't get to eat. 3. Care for the collective property, as well as the multiplying of this property. 4. High consciousness of the social
responsibilities, and intolerance to the violation of the social interests. 5. Collectivism and comradery: All for one and one for all. 6. Humane relationships between human beings: One human being is a friend, a comrade and a brother to another human being. 7. Honesty, ethical cleanliness, as well as simplicity and modesty both in private and public life. 8. Mutual respect in the family,
and care for the upbringing of the children. 9. Intolerance to the injustice, social parasitism, unfairness, careerism, and acquisitiveness. 10. Friendship and brotherhood with all the nations of the USSR, intolerance to all racial and national dislike. 11. Intolerance to the enemies of communism, peace and freedom of peoples of the world. 12. Brotherly solidarity to all workers of all countries and nations.
Now, as you might imagine, when trying to encourage changes in society, role models are often found. And the Soviet Union was no different. And just like elsewhere, the role models changed depending on the time period in question. The Stalinist era used such examples as Pavel Korchagin, Pavlik Morozov and of course, Alexey Stakhanov. Morozov was a Pioneer who turned in his own father to the authorities for his crimes and corruption. His family as a result, turned on him and killed him, but the state turned him into a hero for putting his faith in Communism above the bonds to his own family. We talked about Morozov in our episode on Soviet education.
Stahkanov, as explained in our episode on the industrialization of Ukraine, was a miner who completed his coal quota 14 times over in a single shift. The Stakhanov story was popularised during the period of rapid industrialization and used to push Soviet workers to greater and greater outputs. Pavel Korchagin is not a figure we have as of yet talked about. He is the fictional hero of Nikolay Ostrovsky’s novel “How the Steel Was Tempered”, a semi-autobiographical work which remains one of the best-selling books of all time.
It tells the story of a dedicated communist, who is seriously injured during the Civil War while fighting for the Bolsheviks. Despite this injury, Korchagin goes on to work in construction, where he suffers the loss of both his legs and a hand. Despite these injuries, Korchagin never loses his belief in Communism and his trust in the system. This makes him a role model and an idealised hero of the social realism genre. The Great Patriotic War brought forward role models like Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, who at the age of 18 joined a partisan unit to operate behind German lines. She was captured, tortured, and then executed but allegedly died praising communism and Comrade Stalin. This story
was of course propagandised greatly during the war and after as the ideals one should live up to. And of course, then we have the role models of the Cold War era and what better figures to epitomise the glory of communism than the heroes of the Space Race. People like Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova and German Titov were used by the USSR as domestic role models and international heroes. And believe me when I say the USSR leaned hard into promoting the images of these people. They were promoted and lionised through all available channels including schools and universities, the Pioneer and Komsomol organisations, through art, literature and cinema and of course, through the armed forces, in which all citizens from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok had to serve. What better breeding ground for indoctrination is there, after all?
So, after all of this, the fundamental question then becomes, did any of this work? Was a New Soviet Man created? Put simply, no. And the demonstration of that is that the Soviet Union collapsed and not that many of its citizens stood up to defend it as it did crumble. In fact, by the 1970’s and ‘80s, the idea of the New Soviet Man was becoming an object of ridicule. This is
when the term “Homo Sovieticus” came into being. Homo Sovieticus, a play on the taxonomic structure of humans, inserted a new evolutionary stage for humanity, but it was not one that was flattering. The origin of the term is unclear but is often attributed to the dissident Alexander Zinovyev as he wrote a book with that very title. The book is a witty and often ironic description of the Soviet people and their character by the 1970’s when the book was written.
Zinovyev describes a person without any beliefs, and who was ready to report their neighbours and colleagues at the first opportunity. Homo Sovieticus is cynical and does not believe in either communism OR capitalism. They hope to live in the West, but also hope that the West will disperse demonstrations, ban leftist parties and be a police state. Homo Sovieticus is highly suspicious by nature and trusts no one. Zinovyev writes that Homo Sovieticus is impervious to the sufferings of others and always finds a reason to assign blame to a victim.
“Buddhists cut millions of Muslims in Pakistan? Serves them well, there are too many of them anyway. In India two million men were castrated? Serves them well, there are too many of them anyway. Three million were killed in Cambodia? Great, let everyone see what communism leads to. 20 million Soviet people died in the war? Serves them well, they will be smarter from now on”.
Homo Sovieticus can always find a way to deceive the system. Although they could recite all of the commandments of Communism and would publicly shame transgressors, they would also not hesitate to steal from their own workplaces. The communist mantras could be recited at will but with no thought given to their meaning and they would laugh or mock true believers in the communist, or any other, system. They are psychologically and intellectually flexible and always able to
absolve themselves of any blame. They are a slacker who feels uncomfortable outside of their own collective, no matter how much they hate it and are always the smartest people in the room. A good Homo Sovieticus is good because he doesn’t have the opportunity to be bad towards another person, but when Homo Sovieticus is bad, he can be worse than the most evil person.
This extensive description by Zinovyev is of course laden with irony and is a gross oversimplification designed to lampoon the supposed progress of the Soviet project. Many people have criticised the use of the term Homo Sovieticus as being more of an academic notion rather than any type of widespread reality, basing their arguments around the idea that the Soviet, and post-Soviet, people are a very diverse group that in no way could all fit the same mould. Accepting that Zinovyev’s Homo Sovieticus is based around stereotypes aimed at mocking the creation of a New Soviet man, it is clear that the project of the Revolution failed. No ideal New man emerged and as the Soviet system hit the stagnation period of the Brezhnev era, the idealism of the Soviet people began, or continued, to fade as the case may be. The idea of the New Soviet Man, one who would see the world into a new stage of better life, transformed into the corrupted image of Homo Sovieticus, opportunistic, venal, and often cruel. Perhaps no better metaphor for the history of the Soviet Union itself. We hope you’ve enjoyed this episode and to make
sure you don't miss our future work, please make sure you are subscribed to our channel and have pressed the new, evolved Bell button, one that is based on the idealised version of a bell button for the people. Please consider supporting us on Patreon at www.patreon.com/thecoldwar or through YouTube membership. We can be reached via email at thecoldwarchannel@gmail.com. This is the Cold War Channel and as we think about the Cold War, I will leave you with the words of JFK “In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.”
2022-09-14 09:28
