Maxim Gorky, the first chairman of the Writers' Union of the USSR. Great Soviet Encyclopedia - Union of Writers of the USSR

Writers' Union The Writers' Union of the USSR is an organization of professional writers of the USSR. It was created in 1934 at the First Congress of Writers of the USSR, convened in accordance with the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of April 23, 1932. This Union replaced all previously existing organizations

Plan:

Introduction

• 1 Organization of the USSR SP
• 2 Membership
• 3 Leaders
• 4 SP USSR after the collapse of the USSR
• 5 SP USSR in art
Notes

Introduction

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

Created in 1934 at the First Congress of Writers of the USSR, convened in accordance with the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of April 23, 1932.

The union replaced all the 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 (the All-Russian Union of Writers), the All-Roskomdram.

According to the charter of the Union of Writers of the USSR as amended in 1971 (the Charter was edited several times) - “... 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.”

“II...7. The Union of Soviet Writers sets the general goal of creating works of high artistic value saturated with the heroic struggle of the international proletariat, the pathos of the victory of socialism, reflecting great wisdom and heroism communist party. The Union of Soviet Writers aims to create works of art worthy of the great era of socialism." (From the 1934 charter)

The Charter defined socialist realism as the main method of Soviet literature and literary criticism, adherence to which was prerequisite JV membership.

1. Organization of the USSR joint venture

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 (from 1977 - the first secretary) and formed the secretariat of the board (36 people in 1986), who 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: the Union and Autonomous Republics' Writers' Organizations, the writers' organizations of regions, territories, and the cities of Moscow and Leningrad, with a structure similar to the central organization.

The USSR SP system published “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", "Soviet Motherland" (in Yiddish), "Star", "Bonfire".

All foreign trips of members of the joint venture were subject to approval by the foreign commission of the USSR joint venture.

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

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.

2. Membership

Admission to membership of the joint venture was carried out on the basis of an application, in addition to which recommendations of three members of the joint venture had to be attached. A writer wishing to join the SP 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 numerical composition of the USSR SP by year (according to the organizing committees of the SP 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 from total number members of SP 3665 write in Russian.

A writer could be expelled from the Union of Writers “for offenses that undermine the honor and dignity of a Soviet writer” and for “deviating from the principles and tasks formulated in the Charter of the Union of Writers of the USSR.” 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 speaking (signing open letters) with protests against the persecution of dissidents.

Those expelled from the joint venture were denied publication of their books and publications in journals subordinate to the joint venture; they were practically deprived of the opportunity to earn money literary work. Exclusion from the joint venture was followed by exclusion from the Literary Fund, entailing significant 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 order”, deprivation of USSR citizenship, forced emigration.

For political reasons, A. Sinyavsky, Yu. Daniel, N. Korzhavin, G. Vladimov, L. Chukovskaya, A. Solzhenitsyn, V. Maksimov, V. Nekrasov, A. Galich, E. Etkind, V. were also excluded from the joint venture. 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.

3. Leaders

According to the 1934 Charter, the head of the USSR SP was the chairman of the board, and since 1977 the first secretary of the board.

Conversation between J.V. Stalin and Gorky

The first chairman (1934-1936) of the board of the USSR Writers' Union was Maxim Gorky. (At the same time, the actual management of the activities of the joint venture was carried out by the 1st secretary of the joint venture, Alexander Shcherbakov).

This position was subsequently held by:

• Alexey Tolstoy (from 1936 to 1938); the actual leadership until 1941 was carried out by the General Secretary of the USSR SP Vladimir Stavsky
• Alexander Fadeev (from 1938 to 1944 and from 1946 to 1954)
• Nikolai Tikhonov (from 1944 to 1946)
• Alexey Surkov (from 1954 to 1959)
• Konstantin Fedin (from 1959 to 1977)

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

4. JV USSR after the collapse of the USSR

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

The main successors of the USSR Writers' Union in Russia are the Union of Writers of Russia and the Union of Russian Writers.

5. 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 literary life “A calf butted with an oak tree” A.I. Solzhenitsyn characterizes the USSR SP as one of the main instruments of total party-state control over literary activity in USSR.

Notes

1. Charter of the Union of Writers of the USSR, see “Information Bulletin of the Secretariat of the Board of the Writers' Union of the USSR”, 1971, No. 7(55), p. 9]

M. Gorky

M. Gorky. Collected works in thirty volumes M., GIHL, 1953 Volume 27. Articles, reports, speeches, greetings (1933-1936) So - the first general congress of writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and regions finished its work. This work turned out to be so significant and varied that now, in closing remarks, I can only outwardly outline its deep meaning, I can only note the most significant of what it discovered. Before the congress and at the beginning of it, some and even, it seems, many writers did not understand the meaning of organizing the congress. “Why is he?” these people asked. “We’ll talk, we’ll go our separate ways, and everything will remain the same.” This is very strange people, and at the congress they were rightly called indifferent. Their eyes see that in our reality some things still remain “as they were,” but their indifference does not allow them to realize that what remains is only because the proletariat, the owner of the country, does not have enough time to completely destroy and destroy these remnants. These people are quite satisfied with what has already been done, which has helped them move forward into comfortable positions, and which has strengthened their natural indifference as individualists. They do not understand that we are all very small people in comparison with the great things that are happening in the world, they do not understand that we live and work at the beginning of the first act of the last tragedy of working humanity. They are already accustomed to living without a sense of pride in the meaning of personal existence and only care about preserving the dull lordship, the dull excellency of their small, poorly polished talents. They do not understand that the meaning of personal existence is to deepen and expand the meaning of existence of the multi-million masses of working humanity. But these millions of people sent their representatives to the congress: workers from various fields of production, inventors, collective farmers, pioneers. The whole country stood up before the writers of the Union of Socialist Soviets, stood up and made high demands on them, their talents, their work. These people are the great present and future of the Land of Soviets. Interrupting our conversations, Blinding with the brilliance of unprecedented deeds, They brought their victories - Bread, airplanes, metal - themselves, - They brought themselves as a theme, Like their work, love, life. And each of them sounded like a poem, Because Bolshevism thundered in each. Raw, hastily made lines of poetry Victor Gusev correctly note the meaning of the event: once again the thunder of Bolshevism, the radical transformer of the world and the harbinger of terrible events throughout the world, thundered victoriously. How do I see the victory of Bolshevism at the Writers' Congress? The fact that those of them who were considered non-party, “hesitant”, admitted - with sincerity, the completeness of which I do not dare to doubt - recognized Bolshevism as the only militant guiding idea in creativity, in painting in a word. I highly value this victory, because I, a writer, know from myself how self-willed the thoughts and feelings of a writer are, who tries to find creative freedom outside the strict instructions of history, outside its basic, organizing idea. Deviations from a mathematically straight line developed bloody history working humanity and the brightly illuminated teaching that establishes that the world can be changed only by the proletariat and only through a revolutionary blow, and then through the socialistically organized labor of workers and peasants - deviations from the mathematical straight line are explained by the fact that our emotions are older than our intellect , by the fact that in our emotions there is a lot that is inherited and this inheritance hostilely contradicts the testimony of reason. We were born in a class society, where everyone needs to defend themselves against everyone else, and many enter a classless society as people from whom trust in each other has been erased, from whom the centuries-old struggle for comfortable spot in life, the feeling of respect and love for working humanity, the creator of all values, has been killed. We lack the sincerity necessary for self-criticism, we show too much petty philistine anger when we criticize each other. It still seems to us that we are criticizing a competitor for our piece of bread, and not a comrade at work, which is taking on an increasingly deeper significance as the motivator of all the best revolutionary forces in the world. We, writers, workers of the most individual art, are mistaken in considering our experience to be our sole property, whereas it is a suggestion of reality and, in the past, a very heavy gift from it. In the past, comrades, for we have all already seen and are seeing that the new reality created by the Bolshevik Party, which embodies the mind and will of the masses, - the new reality offers us a wonderful gift - an unprecedented gift of intellectual flowering of many millions of working people. I will remind you of a wonderful speech Vsevolod Ivanov, this speech should remain in our memory as an example of sincere self-criticism of an artist who thinks politically. Speeches deserve the same attention Y. Olesha, L. Seifullina and many others. About two years ago Joseph Stalin, caring about improving the quality of literature, he told communist writers: “Learn to write from non-party people.” Without speaking about whether the communists learned anything from non-party artists, I must note that the non-party people learned to think quite well from the proletariat. (Applause.) Once, in a fit of hangover pessimism, Leonid Andreev said: “The pastry chef - happier writer, he knows that children and young ladies love cake. But a writer is a bad person who does a good job, not knowing for whom and doubting that this work is even necessary. That is why most writers have no desire to please anyone, and want to offend everyone." The writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics see for whom they are working. The reader himself comes to them, the reader calls them "engineers of souls" and demands that they organize simple words in good, truthful images of his feelings, feelings, thoughts, his heroic work, such a dense, direct unity of the reader with the writer has never happened anywhere, and in this fact is a difficulty that we must overcome, but in this fact is our happiness. , which we have not yet learned to appreciate. Just like the cultures of our fraternal republics, national in form, remain and must be socialist in essence, our creativity must remain individual in form and be socialist-Leninist in the sense of its basic, guiding idea. This meaning is the liberation of people from the remnants of the past, from the indoctrination of a criminal and distorting thought and feeling of class history, a history that educates working people as slaves, intellectuals as double-minded or indifferent, anarchists or renegades, skeptics and critics or conciliators. irreconcilable. In the end, the congress gives the right to hope that from now on the concept of “non-party writer” will remain only a formal concept, but internally each of us will feel like a real member of the Leninist party, which so beautifully and timely proved its trust in the honor and work of non-party writers with the permission of the All-Union Congress. At this congress, we issued large bills to the multimillion-dollar reader and the government, and, of course, now we are obliged to pay the bills with honest, good work. We will do this if we do not forget what was suggested to us by the speeches of our readers - and among them our children - we do not forget how enormous the importance of literature is in our country, what various high demands are placed on us. We will not forget this if we immediately destroy in our midst all remnants of group relations - relations that are ridiculously and disgustingly similar to the struggle of the Moscow boyars for localism - for places in the boyar duma and at the tsar's feasts closer to him. We should remember well the clever words of Comrade Seifullina, who correctly said that “we were too quickly and willingly made writers.” And don’t forget your friend’s instructions Nakoryakova, that in 1928-1931 we gave 75 percent of books that did not have the right to second editions, that is, very bad books. “You understand how much we have published in excess, how many unnecessary expenses we have made, not only material, but also spiritual expenses of our people, our creators of socialism, who read a gray, bad, and sometimes shoddy book. This is not only a mistake of the writing team, but it is also one of the biggest mistakes in publishing." I think the end of Comrade Nakoryakov’s last sentence is too soft and kind. With all that has been said, I addressed the writers of the entire congress and, therefore, the representatives of the fraternal republics. I have no reason or desire to give them a special place, because they work not only each for their own people, but each for all the peoples of the Union of Socialist Republics and autonomous regions. History holds them as responsible for their work as the Russians. Due to lack of time, I read few books written by writers of the Union republics, but even the little that I have read inspires me with firm confidence that soon we will receive from them a book remarkable for the novelty of the material and the power of the image. Let me remind you that the number of people does not affect the quality of talent. Little Norway created huge figures of Hamsun and Ibsen. The Jews recently died the almost brilliant poet Bialik and had the exceptionally talented satirist and humorist Sholom Aleichem, the Latvians created the powerful poet Rainis, Finland - Eino-Leino - there is no such small country that does not give great artists the word. I named only the largest and not all of them, and I named writers born in a capitalist society. In the republics of nations that are fraternal to us, writers are born from the proletariat, and in the example of our country we see what talented children the proletariat has created in short term and how continually he creates them. But I address with friendly advice, which can also be understood as a request, to representatives of the nationalities of the Caucasus and Central Asia. The ashig made an amazing impression on me, and - I know - not only on me. Suleiman Stalsky. I saw how this old man, illiterate but wise, sitting on the podium, whispered, creating his poems, then he, Homer of the 20th century, amazingly read them. (Applause.) Take care of people who are capable of creating such pearls of poetry as Suleiman creates. I repeat: the beginning of the art of words is in folklore. Collect your folklore, learn from it, process it. He gives a lot of material to both you and us, the poets and prose writers of the Union. The better we know the past, the easier, the more deeply and joyfully we will understand the great significance of the present we create. Speeches at the meetings of the congress and conversations outside the meeting hall revealed the unity of our feelings and desires, the unity of purpose and revealed our unacceptably small familiarity with art and, in general, with the culture of the fraternal republics. If we do not want the fire that broke out at the congress to go out, we must take all measures to ensure that it flares up even brighter. It is necessary to begin mutual and widespread acquaintance with the cultures of the fraternal republics. To begin with, it would be necessary to organize an “All-Union Theater” in Moscow, which would show life and everyday life on stage, in drama and comedy national republics in their historical past and heroic present. (Applause.) Next: it is necessary to publish collections of current prose and poetry from national republics and regions in Russian, in good translations. (Applause.) Literature for children also needs to be translated. Writers and scientists of national republics must write histories of their countries and states - histories that would acquaint the peoples of all republics with each other. These stories of the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will serve very well good remedy mutual understanding and internal, ideological cohesion of all people of the seven republics. This mutual understanding, this unity of forces is necessary not only for all the people of the Union of Republics, - they are necessary as a lesson and example for all the working people of the earth, against whom its old enemy, capitalism, is organizing itself under a new guise - fascism. A good, practical method of highlighting the cultural ties and business interdependencies of the Union of our republics can be collective work on the creation of the book “Affairs and People of the Two Five-Year Plans.” This book should show the labor force of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the form of essays and stories the results of their labor and the facts of the cultural and educational influence of labor on people, on the growth of intelligence, etc. the will of individuals, to liberate them from the narrow boundaries of the petty-bourgeois individualism of owners, to educate a new, socialist individuality in the conditions of collective labor - to show the spiral along which we move forward and ascend higher and higher. Participation in this work is absolutely necessary for writers of all fraternal republics, all regions. We are still at that stage of development when we must convince ourselves of our cultural growth. Of all that was said at the congress, the most significant and important thing is that many young writers for the first time felt their importance and responsibility to the country and realized their insufficient preparation for work. Collective work on the creation of books that highlight the processes of grandiose work that changes the world and people will serve as an excellent means of self-education and self-strengthening for us. In the absence of serious, philosophical criticism, so sadly shown by the fact of the muteness of professional critics at the congress, we ourselves need to take up self-criticism, not in words, but in deeds, directly in working on the material. Comrade to the method of collective work of writers Ehrenburg was skeptical, fearing that the method of such work could harmfully limit the development of the individual abilities of the work unit. Comrades Vsevolod Ivanov and Lydia Seifullina, objecting to him, it seems to me, dispelled his fears. It seems to Comrade Ehrenburg that the method of collective work is the method of team work. These techniques have no other similarity with each other, except for the physical: in both cases, groups and teams work. But the team works with reinforced concrete, wood, metal, etc., always with a definitely uniform material that needs to be given a predetermined shape. In a team, individuality can only reveal itself through the intensity of its work. Collective work on the material of social phenomena, work on reflection, depiction of life processes - among which, in particular, the actions of shock brigades have their place - is work on infinitely varied facts, and each individual unit, each writer has the right to choose for himself this or that series of facts in accordance with his gravity, his interests and abilities. The collective work of writers on the phenomena of life in the past and present for the brightest illumination of paths to the future has some similarities with the work of laboratories that scientifically and experimentally study certain phenomena of organic life. It is known that the basis of any method is experiment - research, study - and this method, in turn, indicates further paths studying. I have the courage to think that it is the method of collective work with the material that will help us best understand what it should be socialist realism. Comrades, in our country the logic of actions is ahead of the logic of concepts, this is what we must feel. My confidence that this method of collective creativity can produce completely original interesting books, is such that I take the liberty to offer such work to our guests, excellent masters European literature. (Applause.) Will they try to give a book that would depict the day of the bourgeois world? I mean any day: September 25, October 7 or December 15, it doesn’t matter. We need to take an everyday day as the world press reflected it on its pages. It is necessary to show all the colorful chaos of modern life in Paris and Grenoble, in London and Shanghai, in San Francisco, Geneva, Rome, Dublin, etc., etc., in cities, villages, on water and on land. It is necessary to give holidays of the rich and suicides of the poor, meetings of academies, learned societies and facts reflected in newspaper chronicles of wild illiteracy, superstitions, crimes, facts of the sophistication of refined culture, strikes of workers, anecdotes and everyday dramas - insolent cries of luxury, exploits of swindlers, lies of political leaders, - it is necessary, I repeat, to give an ordinary, everyday day with all the crazy, fantastic diversity of its phenomena. This is the work of scissors much more than the work of a pen. Of course, comments are inevitable, but I think they should be as brief as they are brilliant. But facts must be commented on by facts, and on these rags, on this rags of the day, a writer’s commentary should shine like a spark igniting the flame of thought. In general, you need to show the “artistic” creativity of history during one day. No one has ever done this, but it should be done! And if a group of our guests takes on such work, they, of course, will give the world something unprecedented, unusually interesting, dazzlingly bright and deeply instructive. (Applause.) The organizing idea of ​​fascism is racial theory - a theory that elevates the Germanic, Roman, Latin or Anglo-Saxon race as the only force supposedly capable of continuing the further development of culture - a “pure-blooded” racial culture based, as is well known, on a merciless and the increasingly cynical exploitation of the vast majority of people by a numerically insignificant minority. This numerically insignificant minority is also insignificant in its intellectual strength, wasted on inventing methods of exploiting working people and the treasures of nature that belong to working people. From all the talents of capitalism, which once played a positive role as the organizer of civilization and material culture, modern capitalism has retained only mystical confidence in its right to rule over the proletariat and peasantry. But history has brought forward against this mysticism of the capitalists real fact- the strength of the revolutionary proletariat, organized indestructibly and inextinguishably, historically justified, terrible truth teachings Marx-- Lenin, put forward the fact of the “united front” in France and an even more physically tangible fact - the union of the proletariat of the Soviet Socialist Republics. Faced with the power of these facts, the poisonous, but light and thin fog of fascism will inevitably and soon dissipate. This fog, as we see, poisons and seduces only adventurers, only unprincipled, indifferent people - people for whom “everything is all the same” and who do not care who they kill - people who are products of the degeneration of bourgeois society and mercenaries of capitalism for its most vile, vile and bloody deeds. The main strength of the feudal lords of capitalism is the weapons that the working class makes for them - guns, machine guns, cannons, poison gases and everything else that at any moment can be and is directed by the capitalists against the workers. But the time is not far when the revolutionary legal consciousness of the workers will destroy the mysticism of the capitalists. However, they are preparing a new worldwide massacre, organizing the mass extermination of the proletarians of the whole world on the fields of national capitalist battles, the purpose of which is profit, the enslavement of small nationalities, turning them into slaves of Africa - half-starved animals who are obliged to work hard and buy nasty, rotten goods only so that the kings of industry accumulate rich gold - the curse of the working people - gold, with insignificant specks of dust the capitalists pay the workers for forging chains for themselves, developing weapons against themselves. It is in the face of such acute class relations that our All-Union Congress worked, and on the eve of such a catastrophe we, the writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, will continue our work! There cannot and should be no place for personal trifles in this work. Revolutionary internationalism against bourgeois nationalism, racism, fascism—that is the historical meaning of our days. What we can do? We've already done some things. We are doing a good job of uniting all the forces of the radical, anti-fascist intelligentsia, and we are bringing to life proletarian, revolutionary literature in all countries of the world. In our midst there are representatives of almost all European literatures. The magnet that attracted them to our country is not only the wise work of the party, the mind of the country, the heroic energy of the proletariat of the republics, but also our work. To some extent, every writer is the leader of his readers - I think this can be said. Roman Rolland, Andre Gide have the legal right to call themselves “engineers of souls.” Jean Richard Bloch, Andre Malraux, Plivier, Aragon, Toller, Becher, Some- I won’t list them all - these are only bright names talented people, and all of these are harsh judges of the bourgeoisie of their countries, all of these are people who know how to hate, but also know how to love. (Applause.) We did not know how to invite many more, who also possess in full force the wonderful human gift of love and hatred, we did not know how to invite them, and this is our considerable fault before them. But I am sure that the second congress of Soviet writers will be graced by many dozens of writers from the West and East, writers from China and India, and there is no doubt that we are on the eve of the unification around the Third International of all the best and most honest people of art, science and technology. (Applause.) A small and - for me personally - not entirely clear disagreement arose between the foreigners and us on the issue of assessing the position of the individual in a classless society... This question has a predominantly academic, philosophical character, and, of course, it could not be well illuminated on one or two meetings or in one conversation... The essence of the matter is that in Europe and everywhere in the world a writer who cherishes the centuries-old cultural achievements and who sees that in the eyes of the capitalist bourgeoisie these cultural achievements have lost their value, that any day a book any honest writer can be publicly burned - in Europe, the writer increasingly feels the pain of the oppression of the bourgeoisie, fears the revival of medieval barbarism, which, probably, would not exclude the establishment of the Inquisition for heretical thinkers. In Europe, the bourgeoisie and its governments are increasingly hostile towards the honest writer. We do not have a bourgeoisie, and our government is our teachers and our comrades, comrades in the full sense of the word. The conditions of the moment sometimes prompt one to protest against the willfulness of individualistic thought, but the country and the government are deeply interested in the need for the free growth of individuality and provide for this every means as possible in the conditions of a country which is forced to spend huge amounts of money on self-defense against the new barbarian - the European bourgeoisie, armed from teeth to toes. Our congress worked on high notes of sincere passion for our art and under the slogan: raise the quality of work! Needless to say, the more perfect the weapon, the better it ensures victory. The book is the most important and powerful instrument of socialist culture. Books of high quality are demanded by the proletariat, our main, multimillion-dollar reader; books of high quality are necessary for hundreds of aspiring writers who go into literature from among the proletariat - from factories and collective farms of all republics and regions of our country. We must carefully, continuously and lovingly help these youth to the hard way, chosen by her, but, as Seifullina rightly said, one should not rush to “make them writers” and one should remember the instructions of Comrade Nakoryakoz about fruitless, unprofitable waste folk remedies for the production of book defects. We must be collectively responsible for this marriage. All our playwrights spoke passionately and convincingly about the need to improve the quality of our drama. I am sure that the organization of the “All-Union Theater” and the “Classics Theater” will greatly help us to master the high technique of ancient and medieval playwrights, and the dramaturgy of the fraternal republics will expand the scope of themes and indicate new original collisions. in the report Bukharin There is one point that requires objection. Talking about poetry Mayakovsky, N.I. Bukharin did not note the harmful - in my opinion - “hyperbolism” characteristic of this very influential and original poet. As an example of such influence, I take the poems of a very gifted poet Prokofiev,- it seems he edited the novel Molchanova“The Peasant” is a novel that was discussed in “Literary Amusements”, in which the fist-like peasant was glorified as our contemporary Mikula Selyaninovich. Prokofiev depicts in poetry a certain Pavel Gromov - a “great hero”, also Mikula. Pavel Gromov is an amazing monster. The world song is sung about him, How he walked, fierce with sword and fire. He -- shoulders like doors- thundered on the Don. And the dust from the campaign obscured the moon. He -- mouth like a cellar- he walked, having survived everything. So the wolf does not pass and the lynx does not run. He -- cheekbones like boards and a mouth like a coffin- He was the complete master of the clearings and paths. In another poem, Prokofiev depicts such a terrible thing: The eldest son knows no equal, Legs-- logs, chest-- mountain. He's alone stands like a laurel Along the paved courtyard. ...Him mustache-- that the reins, Beard-- what a harrow....Seven desired ones suddenly love. What a goat! By the way, the Lavra is a rich, populous monastery, almost a town, like, for example, the Kiev and Trinity-Sergius Lavra. This is what Mayakovsky’s hyperbolism leads to! In Prokofiev, it seems that it is also complicated by hyperbolism Klyueva, singer of the mystical essence of the peasantry and the even more mystical “power of the earth.” I do not deny Prokofiev’s talent; his desire for epic imagery is even commendable. However, the desire for epic requires knowledge of the epic, and on the way to it one can no longer write such poems: Glory flew across the fields, Thunderbolt controlled fate. If the storms went to the right, Thunderbolt went to the left. The storms again breathed anger, a strong cold of all latitudes (?). If the storms went to the left, Thunderbolt went the other way. I think this is no longer epic. This is like a rehash of an old poem that wanted to be funny: Two friends lived in Kyiv - Amazing people. The first was from the south, and the second was the opposite. The first terrible one was a glutton, And the second one was an idiot, The first one died of constipation, And the second one - on the contrary. Our Soviet poetry has achieved very significant successes in the short period of its life, but just like prose, it contains a very fair amount of barren flowers, chaff and straw. In the struggle for high quality prose and poetry, we must renew and deepen the subject matter, purity and sonority of the language. History has brought us forward as builders of a new culture, and this obliges us to strive even further forward and higher, so that the whole working world can see us and hear our voices. The world would very well and gratefully hear the voices of poets if they, together with musicians, tried to create songs - new ones that the world does not have, but which it should have. It is far from true that the melodies of ancient songs of Russians, Ukrainians, and Georgians are filled with grief and sadness; probably, the Tatars and Armenians also have songs of marching, round dance, comic, dance, labor rhythms, but I am only talking about what I know. Old Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian songs have an endless variety of musicality, and our poets should familiarize themselves with such collections of songs as, for example, “Velikoross” Shayna, as a collection Dragomanova And Kulisha and others of this type. I am sure that such an acquaintance would serve as a source of inspiration for poets and musicians and that the working people would receive wonderful new songs - a gift they have long deserved. It must be taken into account that an old melody, even slightly modified, but filled with new words, creates a song that will be learned easily and quickly. You just need to understand the meaning of rhythm: the chorus of “Dubinushka” can be stretched to the length of a minute, but you can also sing it to a dance rhythm. Our young poets should not disdain creating folk songs. Forward and higher is the path for all of us, comrades, this is the only path worthy of the people of our country, of our era. What does higher mean? This means: we must rise above petty, personal squabbles, above pride, above the struggle for first place, above the desire to command others - above everything that we have inherited from the vulgarity and stupidity of the past. We are involved in a huge cause, a cause of world significance, and we must be personally worthy to take part in it. We are entering an era full of the greatest tragedy, and we must prepare, learn to transform this tragedy in those perfect forms, as the ancient tragedians knew how to portray it. We must not forget for a minute that the whole world of working people is thinking about us as they listen to us, that we are working in front of a reader and viewer that has never been seen before in the entire history of mankind. I urge you, comrades, to study - to learn to think, to work, to learn to respect and appreciate each other, as soldiers value each other on the battlefield, and not waste your energy fighting each other over trifles, at a time when history has called you to merciless struggle with the old world. The Japanese spoke at the congress Hijikato, Chinese Hu Lan-chi and Chinese Amy Xiao. These comrades, as it were, verbally shook hands with each other, signifying the unity of purpose of the revolutionary proletariat of a country whose bourgeoisie was infected from Europe by an acute and fatal attack of the madness of imperialism, and a country whose bourgeoisie not only betrays its people as sacrifices to the robber-imperialists, but also exterminates them themselves to please the imperialism of foreigners, just as Russian landowners and factory owners did this in 1918-1922, using the cynical help of shopkeepers in Europe, America, and Japan. The congress did not clearly enough note the speeches of the representatives of the revolutionary proletariat of the two countries of the East, which can only be explained by the extreme fatigue caused by two weeks of work, which required an enormous amount of attention, and finally tired attention. Having completed its work, the All-Union Congress of Writers unanimously expresses sincere gratitude to the government for allowing the congress and broad assistance to its work. The All-Union Congress of Writers notes that the successes of the internal, ideological association of writers, clearly and solidly revealed at the meetings of the congress, are the result of a resolution of the Central Committee of the Lenin-Stalin Party of April 23, 1932, a resolution that condemned groups of writers for reasons that have nothing to do with common with the great tasks of our Soviet literature as a whole, but by no means denying unification according to technical issues diverse creative work. The Congress of Writers is deeply pleased and proud of the attention generously shown to it by numerous delegations of readers. The writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not forget the high demands placed on them by readers and will honestly try to satisfy these demands. Most of the writers, judging by the structure of their speeches, perfectly understood how enormous the importance of literature in our homeland in general is, they understood what they were obliged to do by the impressive, continuous demonstration of strict, but love relationship readers to literature. We have the right to believe that this love is caused by the merits and work of our young literature. The reader has given us the right to be proud of the attitude of the reader and Lenin’s party towards us, but we should not exaggerate the importance of our work, which is still far from perfect. Self-education through self-criticism, continuous struggle for the quality of books, planned work - as far as it is permissible in our craft - understanding literature as a process created collectively and imposing on us mutual responsibility for each other’s work, responsibility to the reader - these are the conclusions which we must infer from the demonstration of readers at the convention. These conclusions oblige us to immediately begin practical work—the organization of all-Union literature as a whole. We must process the enormous and most valuable material of the speeches at the congress so that it serves us temporary- I emphasize the word “temporary” - leadership in our further work, we must in every possible way strengthen and expand the connection formed at the congress with the literature of the fraternal republics. At the congress, in the presence of representatives of revolutionary literature in Europe, it was sadly and unworthy of our literature that our poor knowledge or complete ignorance of European languages ​​was revealed. In view of the fact that our connections with the writers of Europe will inevitably expand, we must introduce the study of European languages ​​into our everyday life. This is also necessary because it will open up the possibility of reading the greatest works of painting in words in the originals. No less important is our knowledge of the languages ​​of Armenians, Georgians, Tatars, Turks, etc. We need to develop a general program for classes with beginning writers, a program that would exclude from this work subjectivism, which is extremely harmful for young writers. To do this, it is necessary to combine the magazines "Growth" and "Literary Studies" into one magazine of a literary and pedagogical nature and cancel the less successful classes of individual writers with beginners. There is a lot of work, all of this is absolutely necessary. In our country it is unacceptable for the growth of literature to develop by itself; we are obliged to prepare a replacement for ourselves, to expand the number of literary workers ourselves. Then we must ask the government to discuss the need to organize an “All-Union Theater” in Moscow, in which artists of all nationalities of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would have the opportunity to acquaint us Russians with their dramatic art and, through it, with the past and present of their cultural life . The main, permanent troupe of this theater should be Russian, which would perform plays by Azerbaijan, Armenians, Belarusians, Georgians, Tatars and all other nationalities of Central Asia, the Caucasus, Siberia - in Russian, in exemplary translations. The rapid growth of the literature of the fraternal republics obliges us to seriously monitor the growth of these literatures and can significantly contribute to the growth of Russian drama. It is necessary to discuss the issue of organizing a “Classics Theater” in Moscow, in which exclusively plays from the classical repertoire would be performed. They, by introducing the viewer to writers to examples of dramatic creativity of the ancient Greeks, Spaniards and English of the Middle Ages, would increase the viewer's demands on the theater, and the writers' demands on themselves. We need to pay attention to the literature of the regions, especially the Eastern and Western Siberia, to bring her into the circle of our attention, to publish in the magazines of the center, to take into account her importance as an organizer of culture. We must ask the government to allow the Union of Writers to erect a monument to the pioneer hero Pavel Morozov, who was killed by his relatives because, having understood the sabotage activities of his blood relatives, he preferred the interests of the working people to kinship with them. It is necessary to allow the publication of almanacs of current fiction of the fraternal national republics, at least four books per year, and give the almanacs the title “Union” or “Brotherhood” with the subtitle: “Collections of modern fiction of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.” Dear comrades! Before us is a huge, varied work for the benefit of our homeland, which we are creating as the homeland of the proletariat of all countries. Get to work, comrades! Friendly, harmonious, fiery-- get to work! Long live the friendly, strong unity of workers and fighters in a word, long live the All-Union Red Army of Writers! And long live the all-Union proletariat, our reader,-- reader-friend, whom the honest writers of Russia were so passionately waiting forXIXcentury and who has appeared, lovingly surrounds us and teaches us to work! Long live Lenin's party-- Leader of the proletariat, long live the leader of the party, Joseph Stalin! (Stormy, long-lasting applause, turning into ovation. Everyone stands up and sings “Internationale.”)

NOTES

The twenty-seventh volume includes articles, reports, speeches, greetings written and delivered by M. Gorky in 1933-1936. Some of them were included in authorized collections of journalistic and literary-critical works ("Publicistic Articles", 2nd edition - 1933; "On Literature", 1st edition - 1933, 2nd edition - 1935, as well as in the 3rd edition - 1937, prepared for publication during the author’s lifetime) and were repeatedly edited by M. Gorky. Most of the articles, reports, speeches, and greetings included in the volume were published in periodicals and were not included in authorized collections. Articles, reports, speeches, and greetings from M. Gorky are included in the collected works for the first time.

First published in the newspapers "Pravda", 1934, No. 242, September 2, "Izvestia of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee", 1934, No. 206, September 2, "Literary Gazette", 1934, No. 117, September 2, and "Literary Leningrad" , 1934, No. 45, September 3, as well as in the publications: “The First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers,” Verbatim Report, M. 1934; M. Gorky, Soviet literature, Goslitizdat, M. 1934. Included in the second and third editions of the collection of articles by M. Gorky “On Literature.” Published with a slight reduction from the text of the second edition of the specified collection, verified with manuscripts and typescripts (A. M. Gorky Archive).

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