The Soviet censorship system is a phenomenon of purely historical significance, that is, it bears no relevance to current practices of media and artistic control

4 | Page








‘The Soviet censorship system is a phenomenon of purely historical significance, that is, it bears no relevance to current practices of media and artistic control.’ Discuss.

























There’s no truth in ‘Pravda’1 and no news in ‘Izvestia’2.

(‘Dear Pravda’, New York Times, 12/05/1987)

To begin the debate on the censors working within and outside the Soviet Union borders, one should be explained what the meaning of truth in Russian language is. Martin Dewhirst, a specialist on the Soviet censorship, explains that there are at least two notions of truth – pravda and istina. While the first meaning refers to facts and slogans spread by the Communist Party, the latter stands for genuine picture of the reality. For decades Russians were misled that “pravda is what appeared in today’s leading article in ‘Pravda’”. (Dewhirst, 1991; opentextnn.ru) They preferred deception to “the mass of petty istinas”.3 Indeed, why should a common citizen of the Soviet States question ‘righteous and lawful’4 messages from the government if any of such inquiries had not been validated, but reported to the authorities as anti-Soviet propaganda?

Although the Soviet Union ceased to exist over a decade ago, the question of truth has not been answered. The flow of information, and its suppression was so effective that managed to convince the society to collaborate with the Party. Cooperation with the Soviet authorities was for the citizens the case of life and death. This phenomenon of the censorship system in the USSR is still an enigma hidden behind the walls of the Kremlin.

The longer the secret has been concealed and kept secret, the more questions about Russia and its censors’ practices remain one-sided. Should these uncertainties be long forgotten and buried in history books? Or, is the Soviet censorship only the basis under the modern system in Russia? This essay will attempt to evaluate whether the Soviets’ control over domestic and foreign publications is relevant to Russian censors today.

It should be stressed at the very beginning that the Soviet practices had originated nearly a century before they were brought into life. In 1828 Tsar Alexander I issued a decree of copyright, Statue of Censorship, known as Ustav o tsenzure. The law guaranteed an author the right to distribute his works during his lifetime and 25 years after death. With added benefit of “freedom of translation”, the copyright license could bring artists international popularity. However, if a work did not meet certain requirements of the authorities, it had to be censored before its circulation. (Dewhirst, 1973:ii; Treml, 1999:1)

Since the law of copyright was established minor changes were applied to its original form, but the artist content was nearly unaffected by the formalities until 1917, commemorating the October Revolution5. The newly formed Soviet authorities discredited the Tsarist decree and introduced several modifications to this law.

To avoid any kind of double or hidden meaning, equivoques, misunderstanding of the contents of the art works the socialist realism was declared the one and only acceptable style and method of all arts in the Soviet Union. (Sinitsyna, 1998:p.2)

The revised copyright legislation was approved by the Central Executive Committee, and later in 1961-1962 became a part of the Civil Law. (Patelis, 2009:711-734, Treml, 1999:1)

All the alterations and amendments to the copyright decree were commenced with the intention of granting control over artistic matter generated within the USSR to the state. Literary, musical, dramatic, and photographic works were edited or supressed by Censorship Committee established by the Soviets within the Department of Education. Undesirable contents of already published works and materials awaiting their launch were revised or “cleared” by the Board. (Treml, 1999:1) At the time, many Russian artists were force to emigrate or accept the communist dictatorship. Those who attempted to oppose the authorities were “badly prosecuted”. (Sinitsyna, 1998:p.4)

Soviet government was particularly focused on the image of the Russian Imperium emitted to Western Europe; thus “the censors’ control covered both foreign publication in their original language and their Russian translations” (Treml, 1999:1-2). On many occasions foreign language books were likely to appear on bookshelves, but their Russian translations were banned by the Committee. For most of the Russian society at the time were poor, uneducated, and illiterate, there was only a small privileged group, namely the elite, that could understand foreign languages and remain uninfluenced by revolutionary theories and trends arriving from the West. For example, Jean Jacques Servan-Schreiber6 and his views on the Soviet Union advances in technology being threatened by the United States’ scientific progress were “initially approved and actually translated but subsequently dropped from the list of publications” (Junker, 2004:185; Treml, 1999:17).

To protect the society from undesirable influences from abroad, Soviet authorities preserved in spetskhrans, closed repositories in libraries. In these rooms a number of specialists had certain access to foreign literature. Such publications were thoroughly classified and contained the censors’ comments or recommendations. The largest spestkhran in the country, the Lenin Library was visited about eight times a year. Between 1960 and 1985 the total of such visitors was nearly doubled; from 2,000 cleared readers in 1960 to 3,940 in 1985. (Treml, 1999:3,12)

Another form of control over the written content was Glavlit7. This institution “was responsible for the control of periodic publications, libraries, and archives. It would prepare for approval the lists of prohibited literature, and directed what should be kept in spetskhrans, classified as ‘secret’, ‘absolutely secret’, or ‘for administrative use only’ (Gorbachev 1995: 323-4). After watchful examination, Glavlit officials either permanently damaged anti-Soviet content mailed or brought from the West or buried it in spestkhrans. The system was eliminated in 1988.”(Treml, 1999:10-11)

Agitprop8 is yet one more example of the censorship in the USSR. The Department of Agitation and Propaganda was expected to monitor, limit and manipulate all Soviet population – from newspaper editors to unions of fishermen or hunters. The Agitprop staff would instruct the press how to portray a desirable image of the Soviet Union and, moreover, how to respond to the counter-propaganda from Western publications. (Treml, 1999:14)

On one hand, this “system of severely restricting the dissemination of western ideas to a small number of trusted officials was successful” and survived over seven decades of communist Russia (Treml, 1999:13). On the other, Russia was “the first laboratory for the Communist experiment on human species” and failed to create a ‘New Man’.

This man was to be free from ethnic affiliations, see no sense in private property, be always ready to sacrifice himself for the benefit of society, have no doubts that he originated from an ape or something like it (certainly from a beast) and that nothing will remain of him after his death. In other words, he was to be a one-hundred per cent materialist and atheist and must know that the meaning of life is in the person's usefulness to society and the supreme goal is in a better, wealthy and happy life of future generations. Recognizing this, he would necessarily be happy. (Khodorovich:p.3)

After the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War9, Soviet ideology and its failure seemed to be buried in history. Prominent leaders of the past, such as Lenin, Stalin, or Khrushchev, remained just a memory of the period glorifying Marxist ideas. After 1991, even the communists appeared to denounce Soviet regime. (Lucas, 2008:133)

Vladimir Putin, a former KGB10 agent and current Prime Minister of Russia, promotes a new attitude to the past. In his opinion the dissolution of the Soviet Republics was the “greatest geographical catastrophe of the twentieth century”11. Putin also disapproved of history textbooks used in Russian schools up till 2007, as “many school books are written by people who work to get foreign grants. They dance to butterfly-polka that others paid for”. The Prime Minister thinks that guilty feelings must not be imposed on Russians, especially the young ones who should be proud of their country. Noveyshaya Istoriya Rossii: 1945-200612 by Aleksandr Filipov describes Stalin as “one of the most successful leaders of the USSR” “forced by circumstances to take harsh decisions”. According to the new history textbook, “Stalin followed Peter the Great’s logic: demand the impossible to get the maximum possible”. (Lucas, 2008: 140-143; Smith, 2008: 5; kremlin.ru)

Such reflection of pro-Stalinist period views, and also a proof that Putin’s voice is not a single one in present Russia, can be noticed in the poll carried by two American academics, ‘The Putin Generation: political views of Russia’s youth’. Half of the respondents said that Stalin was a good leader and “disagreed with the statement that [he] was a cruel tyrant”. (reuters.com)

Another example demonstrating how effectively the Kremlin13 employs practices of Soviet propagandists was the Soviet-era lie revived by Rossiiskaya Gazeta14 that Polish officers and intelligentsia murdered in Katyn was a Nazi crime. (Lucas, 2008: 145; Smith, 2008: 6) Such fabrications were rooted in Soviet propaganda in order to protect the image of NKVD15. Today, yet again Russian journalists directed the Duma16 restore old techniques of deception.

The mass-media are still an instrument in hands of the authorities. “The raison d’etat17 rules. Sovereign democracy is just the latest label for this; anyone who studied Russian history will see that many of these ideas go back in centuries”. (Lucas 2008: 270) Even upcoming 2012 presidential elections seem to be a farce, as the press has already announced that “the return of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is inevitable” (english.pravda.ru; WikiLeaks).

Putin seems to know that Soviet regime is not only a page in history books, but the myth that the nation idealises and aspires to. “Victory day celebrations are the highlight of the Russian patriotic calendar.” (Lucas 2008: 146) Rewriting history and censoring the news are two popular practices that originated in the Soviet Union. Both of these methods proved to be effective and relevant under different establishment.

However, any research into the legend of Soviet-era attempted today would be inaccurate as for many files considering inconvenient facts have been lost or destroyed. On many occasion, there was no record of the policies originating in Soviet institutions, as for telefonnoye pravo18. (Treml, 1999:15,25,42) This part of Russian history is tainted with red spots of Soviet propaganda and more of the problematic facts would be uncovered if only the full access to Soviet archives was given.













Bibliography



<http://www.opentextnn.ru/censorship/russia/sov/libraries/books/mdew/?id=431>

<http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla64/067-101e.htm>

<http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/04-07-2011/118391-russian_president-0/>



















1 In Russian pravda means truth. ‘Pravda’ was also a leading newspaper in the Soviet Union published from 1912 until 1991. In the West ‘Pravda’ was well-known as ‘the voice of Soviet Communism’.

2 In Russian inzvestia stands for delivered messages, hence in the press context this word is translated as ‘news’. ‘Izviestia’ has been published since 1917 and is known as ‘the official voice for the Soviet/Russian government’.

3 Dewhirst, M. ‘Soviet socialist realism and the Soviet censorship system’ and Pushkin, A. ‘Geroi’ [The Hero]

4 In Russian, pravdivosc [truthfulness] and spraviedlivost[righteous, justice-what ought to be truth] are similar and can be often misinterpreted;

5 The Russian Civil War (1918-1922) was the outcome of the success of the Bolsheviks Revolution in 1917, also known as the October Revolution. In effect, the state was transformed to socialist. However, the Bolsheviks struggled to conquer ethnically diverse territories of the Russian Imperium. As confronted by the opponents, the Red Guards responded violently in order to protect their seats in the newly formed government. The Bolshevik’s victory was followed by the creation of the USSR (the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics).

6 Jean Jacques Servan-Schreiber (1924-2006) was a French journalist and politician famous for his radical views on a silent economic war between Europe and the United States in his international bestseller “Le Defi Americain” (“The American Challenge” published in 1967).

7 General Directorate for Protection of State Secrets in the Press

8 The Department of Agitation and Propaganda of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

9 The Cold War (1946-1991) is the period of political conflict and economic competition between the USSR and the Western World, mainly the United States but also Western European countries.

10 The Committee for State Security was a national security agency in the USSR, between 1954 and 1991

11 Vladimir Putin, Annual Address to the Federal Assembly, 25 April 2005

12 Most Recent History of Russia: 1945-2006

13 The Kremlin is a term referring to current government of Russia

14 The official government newspaper in Russia

15 The People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs in the USSR acting as secret police responsible for executing power, including political repressions during the Stalin-era

16 current Russian government

17 (French) reason of the state

18 Telephone license or telephone rights granted in the Soviet Union permitted the Central Committee officials to make decisions over the phone without ‘paper trail’.


Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:

więcej podobnych podstron