[38] I. P. Beliaev, "Komissiia fabrichno-zavodskikh predpriatii po kul'turno-prosvetitel'noi rabote sredi shirokikh mass," Sbornik Kostromskogo Proletkul'ta , no. 1 (1919), p. 100.
[39] Ibid., p. 104.
[40] "Organizatsiia Kostromskogo Proletkul'ta," ibid., pp. 106–7.
[41] Bonnell, Roots of Rebellion , pp. 25–37, especially p. 30.
― 75 ―
organizations that compiled precise occupational data reveal all kinds of members with artisanal occupations, including tailors, seamstresses, bakers, and house painters.[42]
Unfortunately, most local organizations did not keep detailed descriptions of the occupational status of their participants; at best they distinguished between workers and nonworkers. But the category of "worker" by itself was a blunt tool for social analysis in revolutionary Russia. It conveyed political power, and local groups at times distorted their official records to make themselves appear more proletarian.[43] It also had a metaphorical meaning that extended to the "people" as a whole. It is only in this sense that we can understand why one Proletkult music teacher could survey her class, composed of the children of priests, peasants, artisans, and petty bureaucrats, and conclude that "the majority are workers."[44]
White-Collar Workers and the "Laboring Intelligentsia"
The Proletkult reached beyond the industrial working class to embrace laborers in the service sector—office workers, shop assistants, and sales personnel. Their ubiquitous presence reflected the open-door policy that many local groups pursued. However, they also found a place because many employees considered themselves, and were considered by their peers, to be legitimate members of the working class. The two shopkeeper's apprentices who founded the Proletkult theater studio in Tamboy called themselves workers, and so did the
[42] See Tver and Archangel membership lists, TsGALI f. 1230, op. 1, d. 1525, ll. 66–69 and d. 1209, ll. 35 ob.–36.
[43] The Archangel Proletkult reported 90 percent worker participation in 1921, but a more detailed list, with members' occupations specified, revealed that less than half of the members were workers. Compare TsGALI f. 1230, op. 1, d. 54, ll. 2–5 to d. 1209, l. 48.