[40] Pravda , September 17, 1918. On the theater performances see A. A. Mgebrov, Zhizn' v teatre (Moscow, 1933), vol. 2, pp. 394–403.
[41] Protokoly pervoi konferentsii identifies forty-seven delegates by name and organization. Eight were from the organizing committee, nine came from the Moscow or Petrograd Proletkults and thirty others came from a variety of groups, including unions, soviets, factories, and clubs. For the delegates' party affiliation see Izvestiia VTsIK , September 26, 1918; and Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 5 (1918), p. 26.
[42] "Revoliutsiia i kul'turnye zadachi proletariata," Protokoly pervoi konferentsii , pp. 17–21, esp. pp. 20–21.
[43] The term is Stefan Krivtsov's, "Konferentsiia proletkul'tov," Rabochii mir , no. 14 (1918), p. 33.
― 47 ―
hand were those who felt that the Proletkult should soften its claims for independence.
The maximalists objected that the lines drawn between Proletkult and Narkompros work were artificial. The Proletkult should not relinquish control over general educational programs because there could be no cultural creation without education. Some insisted that the new organization take control of all the cultural needs of the proletariat, leaving no responsibilities for Narkompros. They even proposed that the Proletkult assume responsibility for the education of all proletarian children.[44] Even more radical was the demand that the Proletkult take over Narkompros altogether. "Only the Proletkult, and no one else, can achieve a revolutionary culture," proclaimed the Petrograd art director, A. A. Andreev.[45]
Those on the other side, the "minimalists," showed little sympathy for Proletkult autonomy. Echoing the concerns of Narkompros workers, they feared that the Proletkult could ultimately weaken Soviet culture by making exaggerated demands on the new state's resources. Because there were so few cultural workers in the provinces to begin with, one delegate objected, the expansion of the Proletkult would only decrease existing groups' chances of survival. As one Moscow metalworker insisted, "We have a Commissariat of Enlightenment. We should unite around it and not create independent parallel organizations."[46] However, neither of these alternative approaches swayed the convention leaders or the majority of the delegates; resolutions worked out in advance by the planning committee were accepted with very few minor alterations.
Although Proletkult leaders had agreed to restrict the organization's powers, the cultural agenda they presented at the conference was still expansive. Bogdanov expounded on the need for a proletarian science, a topic he had already developed in his voluminous writings before the revolution. To realize this goal, he proposed to create a special proletarian
[44] Protokoly pervoi konferentsii , pp. 51–52, 63–64.
[45] Ibid., pp. 25–26, quotation p. 26.
[46] Ibid., p. 26.
― 48 ―
university where participants would fashion a proletarian encyclopedia, codifying working-class knowledge in the same way that the eighteenth-century French encyclopedia had done for the bourgeoisie. Cultural workers discussed ways to shape a proletarian music, art, literature, and theater through special artistic studios. They planned to popularize their creations through their own publications, exhibitions, and performances. Advocates of workers' clubs believed the Proletkult could create a new kind of proletarian collective where the old habits of daily life would be transformed. The delegates envisioned special circles to discover inventive ways to educate the young. They even hoped to found an international organization to spread the idea of proletarian culture from revolutionary Russia to the rest of the world.[47]
The sobering problem of funding was raised only once during the conference. Although the Proletkult was autonomous, it still expected Narkompros to foot the bills. The government would supply the central Proletkult with a subsidy, to be distributed among provincial affiliates. But because financial dependence on the state clearly contradicted the organization's claims to independence, the central leaders held out the hope that their affiliates would soon discover their own means of support. "All independent proletarian cultural-educational organizations receiving monetary aid from state organs when they start and expand their activities must strive to exist on their own funds."[48]
One of the most important results of the meeting was the election of a governing board for the national Proletkult. Delegates chose a central committee, an editorial board for Proletarian Culture , now the official journal of the national organization, and confirmed Proletkult representatives to Narkompros. Not surprisingly, the elections reflected already
[47] On science see ibid., pp. 31–42; on art see ibid., pp. 44–47, 72–80, 110–28; on clubs see ibid., pp. 90–100; on youth see ibid., pp. 66–72; on the International Proletkult see ibid., p. 14.
[48] Ibid., p. 54.
― 49 ―
existing power relations. Lebedev-Polianskii, who had served as both the chair of the conference organizing committee and the chair of the conference itself, was elected the first national president. The other officers, Fedor Kalinin and Aleksei Samobytnik-Mashirov as vice presidents and Vasilii Ignatov as secretary, had been involved in the Proletkult from the start. Aleksandr Bogdanov was chosen for the central committee and the editorial board of Proletarian Culture . The rest of the central committee members came largely from Moscow and Petrograd.[49]
The shape of the national organization was elaborated in discussions and resolutions. At its head was to be a central committee, chosen from an elected national council. More precise descriptions of the Proletkult hierarchy were approved at the first meeting of the national council in January 1919.[50] The basic Proletkult cell was to be the factory, where all workers interested in culture would congregate. Factory circles would unite to form a district (raionnyi ) Proletkult, and these would combine into a city organization. City groups would then unite at the provincial level, and from this broadly based pyramid the national organization would emerge.[51] At each stage Proletkult operations would be governed by a democratically elected council. This plan owed something to both party and union organizational structures and in fact proposed that the territorial divisions for the Proletkult be the same as those for unions. Although Proletkultists may have renounced their claims to control all of Soviet culture, they clearly had very ambitious plans; they envisioned a base in every factory in Soviet Russia.
The national structure now seemed secure. By building up
[49] Ibid., pp. 7, 55.
[50] "Plan organizatsii Proletkul'ta," from TsGALI f. 1230, op. 1, d. 138, ll. 1–3; reprinted in Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 6 (1919), pp. 26–29.
[51] Ibid. This structure is graphically represented in Peter Gorsen and Eberhard Knödler-Bunte, Proletkult: System einer proletarischen Kultur (Stuttgart, 1974), vol. 1, pp. 62–63.
― 50 ―
from factory organizations, the Proletkult meant to guarantee a proletarian following. Its autonomous standing was intended to protect the organization's unique class identity. Finally, the hierarchical framework outlined in the national charter aimed to give the central leadership enough power to set the standards and guidelines for local networks. But this elegant scheme failed at every level. As the Proletkult began its rapid expansion throughout Soviet-held territory, central leaders began to face some very disquieting circumstances. The careful arrangements they had made with Narkompros were ignored or misunderstood. The Proletkult's highly valued autonomy often proved difficult to realize, and local groups shaped their own agendas with little concern for national programs. The careful plans of Proletkult theorists were quickly rent asunder as the needs and desires of local followers began to assert themselves.
The Local Reception
"We are entering the beginning of a new Renaissance," pronounced one orator in Perm at a celebration to mark the opening of the local Proletkult in the summer of 1918.[52] His hyperbole conveys some of the enthusiasm that greeted the Proletkult in the first years of Soviet power. The popularity of this cultural movement astounded even its most optimistic supporters. New organizations sprang up "like mushrooms after a spring rain," to quote the cliché advocates used to describe its proliferation. Proletkult expansion was so rapid and chaotic that the central organization could not control or even successfully monitor it. New groups opened and closed in waves, victims of the Civil War, financial problems, or local struggles over cultural resources. To make things even more confusing, some circles called themselves Proletkults without having any ties to the center at all.
[52] Cited in Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 3 (1918), p. 31.
― 51 ―
During the spring and summer of 1918 a few groups started operation in provincial cities and towns, inspired by press reports and the efforts of propagandists sent from Moscow and Petrograd.[53] But the real organizational upsurge began after the September conference, which received extensive coverage in the national press.[54] "The national conference opened up a new world of thought for us," wrote one participant from Ivanovo-Voznesensk. He and others returned home laden with masses of material and set to work to found local chapters.[55] A representative from the Tver province tailors' union became a strong booster back in his hometown. A performance by the Petrograd Proletkult theater troupe convinced him that the organization could make a difference in Tver's cultural life.[56]
The Proletkult quickly captured the imagination of many cultural activists, and the center already listed 147 local affiliates by the end of 1918.[57] Although this is not a completely reliable estimate, it still shows a remarkable increase in just a few months. As one participant remarked, the organization seemed to be growing by the hour, not by the day.[58] By the fall
[53] See reports in Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 1, p. 32; no. 2, p. 34; no. 3, p. 31; no. 4, p. 34.
[54] Pravda , for example, printed reports almost every day from September 17 to 25, 1918, including verbatim texts of numerous resolutions.
[55] Unsigned report from 1922, TsGALI f. 1230, op. 1, d. 1245,1.5.