Was State Propaganda the Main Reason for the Soviet Regime’s Control over Its People 1917-1953?

Was State Propaganda The Main Reason For The Soviet Regime’s Control Over Its People 1917-1953?

A challenge faced by the Soviet Regime, particularly due to its revolutionary roots, was the control of public sentiment – a very powerful tool in the success or fall of a regime. The revolution had demonstrated to the people that they were capable of change, and though the Bolsheviks had found their success in this climate they had the task of stabilising the country and bringing this revolutionary fervor under control. The regime employed two forms of control - informal social control that operated through the individual that was exemplified by the mutual surveillance within society. As well as formal social control that was hierarchical control, such as the economic management of the people. A lot of control can be attributed to propaganda that disseminated the agenda of the regime, however control can also be seen in many other forms.

Initially, art and culture was approved by the regime on the basis of whether or not it would help to stir support and enthusiasm for the Bolsheviks. Lenin’s reservations and opinions concerning art seem largely to have been based on ideological principles, these informed his dislike of bourgeois futurism and avant-garde art. Lenin’s concern that these forms would not be accessible and understandable to the working class shows that he felt the messages carried in art had to be absorbed by all parts of society, thus lending credence to the idea that art was utilized as a wide-reaching form of influence, given the extent of government control of art. However, it was under Stalin that it became increasingly difficult to discriminate between art and propaganda due to the very high level of government scrutiny it was subjected to. It Is often argued that the criteria with which art can be differentiated from propaganda lies in whether the producer of the art is creating it with the intention that it be used as propaganda rather than only whether a government appropriates it and uses it as propagandistic purposes.

The establishment of the Union of Soviet Writers by the Central Committee of the Communist Party to replace bodies such as Proletkult and RAPP is exemplary of structural control that Stalin held and of the transformation of artists into tools of the state. An objective of social realism, as described by Kulik, was to ‘participate in the building of socialism’, thus writers were aware of their role in the production of propaganda –this statement confirms the aforementioned criteria for propaganda, as all work was intended to propagate support for the socialist government. However, an important distinction should also be made regarding whether personal political convictions of artists coincidentally complied with government narrative, in which case the promotional art produced is not complying with the criteria. This possible doubt can be dispelled when the concept of the personality cult is taken into account, as material that serves the purpose of deifying a leader as well as promoting an ideology is highly unlikely not to have been produced with the intention that it be used as propaganda.

Russian society had been used to the absolute deification of the Tsar and the worship of political leaders had been normalized. The Bolsheviks took advantage of this custom and of a society that was structured around the adulation of the Tsar. Though Lenin rejected the religious aspect of this idolization, he did benefit from the public veneration of himself as a figure of revolution. The cult of personality was a very powerful form of control as it gave legitimacy to the leadership, indeed this reputation of legitimacy that was established under Lenin’s cult of personality created a legacy wherein subsequent leaders drew their credibility from their position as successors to Lenin. Another purpose of the cults was creating a singular figure that could be trusted in what had been a very turbulent social and political envorinment. Under Stalin, the drive for monitoring and surveillance had normalized a climate of suspicion and so his status as someone who could be relied on and trusted made him an indispensible figure in Soviet society.  

There was also development of competitive sports such as gymnastics, football and ice hockey that that promoted national pride and culminated in events such as the All-Russia Pre-Olympiads and the First Central Asian Olympics of 1920. Consequently the society embraced patriotism as a form of support; however, this patriotism could then be exploited by the regime for another purpose; fuelling and motivating the self-sacrificing attitude to further the development of the nation by ceaselessly working to industrialize the country. Therefore, this also acted as another means of control - stoking national sentiment and then redirecting it to perform the wishes of the state.

The communist interpretation of economics also facilitated a strong state control over the people in a variety of ways. To begin with, the teleological mode of economics implemented under Stalin’s five year plans promoted a social state based on surveillance and monitoring of progress to ensure goals and aims for production were met. This served to create a strong structure of control implemented by the government but perpetuated by the people, culminating in an intrinsically controlled society. Strong punishment for those who failed to meet the goals set by the state further promoted the mutual surveillance within society, as the consequences of failure were so severe. Under the NEP the allocation of production to particular sections of society saw the forcible migration of these groups and this allowed for control to be exerted even on the most remote communities. Following this, Stalin’s collectivization policy imposed control that extended into the countryside. In the case of previously unfixed and migratory communities such as Kazakh nomads that had not been subjected to the control of the regime were destroyed during collectivization, simultaneously forcing them to work on the kolkhoz as well as stripping them of their unique cultural identities. Collectivization was an effective form of control as it divided and reformed communities that relied solely on services provided by the state that were located in the kolkhoz. With this in mind, it can be considered that no part of the USSR was free from at least some form of control.

Similarly, the communist rationale that sees competitive variety in consumerism as wasteful inspired the standardization of design, and thus, the emergence of uniformity amongst society became a key part of social control. In one sense it could be argued that the creation of this uniform society allowed for the regime to recognize difference and thus subversion of the communist rationale very easily – making difference inherently indicative of contradiction to government policy. Normalizing this lack of choice amongst the people translated into an acceptance of lack of choice and personal freedom in many other areas, thus creating a very controlling government.  This absence of a consumer identity and individualism allowed for satisfaction and identity to be sought in a different way, and so the concept of the hardworking and dedicated soviet was propagated that simultaneously provided identity and served the government.

...