[79] Stefan Krivtsov, Protokoly pervoi konferentsii , p. 90; and A., "Rabochie kluby," Proletkul't (Vladikavkaz), no. 1 (1919), p. 15.
― 185 ―
tionship to the laboring population and to the industrial proletariat in particular. During the Civil War and the first years of the New Economic Policy Narkompros, the Communist Party, the national union organization, and the Proletkult all competed for influence in club networks in order to forge links to "the broad mass of workers." Because most clubs offered some form of lectures and classes, they were an attractive vehicle for those who wished to imbue the masses with the new socialist spirit.
Initially, Proletkultists advocated a loose affiliation with existing clubs in the hope that the clubs could serve as a training ground for their activities. Delegates to the Moscow Proletkult conference in February 1918 argued that city clubs could prepare members for more rigorous creative activity. They should have tea rooms, cafeterias, and reading rooms for general use. The Proletkult's job would be to oversee cultural work in these independent bodies, which would be tied to, but not part of, its own apparatus.[80]
However, this path proved too modest for the central leaders, who quickly outlined an ambitious plan for a special kind of Proletkult club. Fedor Kalinin proposed an ideal intellectual environment, almost like a small university, where workers could find information on union affairs, government programs, and legal problems. Clubs would offer myriad cultural stimuli and studios as well as lectures and study circles. The range of activities was to be so broad that Kalinin called the club "a universal studio for the practical realization of the proletarian cultural program, a living laboratory that embraces all aspects of workers' lives."[81] In other words, he hoped to turn the club into an intensive study center, leaving little time for leisure. This distinctive approach gained an official stamp of approval at the first national conference in 1918. Local organizations were advised to form a special club
[80] Moskovskaia konferentsiia , pp. 8–14.
[81] F. Kalinin, "Rabochii klub," Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 2 (1918), pp. 13–15, quotation p. 13.
― 186 ―
division (klubnyi otdel or klubo ) and start their own clubs, which would serve as "the heartbeat and brain of the working class."[82]
According to central guidelines Proletkult clubs had to provide extensive educational services, including classes in the social sciences, art history, law, and socialist theory. In addition, they were supposed to offer a broad array of creative artistic workshops.[83] Yet another crucial function of the club was the transformation of daily life (byt ) to reflect the values of socialism. In this area, however, the center issued no specific instructions; presumably, new patterns of social interaction and collectivity would emerge in the laboratory of the club itself.
The national organization devoted considerable resources to club expansion, even financing groups that were not formally part of the Proletkult network.[84] Its ambitious demands for highly structured programs encouraged some local organizations to try to centralize all proletarian clubs under Proletkult control, including those sponsored by other organizations. Such actions, however, met concerted opposition, particularly from the Adult Education Division in Narkompros. The Petrograd Proletkult, for example, founded a club division that helped to supply some 120 city clubs in 1919.[85] But Narkompros quickly challenged the Proletkult's role and installed itself as the main coordinator of city clubs by the following year.[86]
[82] Protokoly pervoi konferentsii , pp. 49, 90–100, quotation p. 90.
[83] See "Primernyi ustav rabochego kluba," Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 7/8 (1919), pp. 62–67.
[84] See, for example, the discussion on funding for the Moscow club "Third International," TsGALI f. 1230, op. 1, d. 3, ll.35, 37.
[85] "Rezoliutsiia klubnoi sektsii po dokladu t. Kudelli," Griadushchee , no. 5/6 (1919), pp. 28–29; and Vneshkol'noe obrazovanie (Petrograd), no. 4/5 (1919), pp. 70–71.
[86] Petrogradskaia obshchegorodskaia konferentsiia rabochikh klubov: Stenograficheskii otchet (Petrograd, 1920), pp. 3, 12. For a similar conflict in Moscow see Vladimir Faidysh's March 10, 1919, report in the Moscow Proletkult, TsGALI f. 1230, op. 1, d. 35, l.2; lzvestiia TslK , January 11, 1919, p. 4; and Gorn , no. 2/3 (1919), pp. 126–27.
― 187 ―
Efforts at centralization also backfired because they undermined the clubs' community base. The Moscow Proletkult conducted a study of factory clubs in 1920 and concluded that they were not at all well organized: instead of operating disparate, poorly funded groups factories should consolidate their resources and open regional city clubs that could serve several factories at once.[87] But the cure proved worse than the disease. When club activists formed larger regional circles, they discovered that the new circles were too far away from the workplace and thus were inaccessible to many workers because of the poor state of public transportation. The Moscow division was forced to admit that its rationalization attempts had been a failure.[88]
One of the best documented and most successful Proletkult circles was the First Workers' Socialist Club in Kostroma. It helped members find apartments, furniture, food, and also served as a general information center.[89] In addition to these practical functions, it offered lectures on a variety of topics, from physics to agriculture, and also sponsored literacy courses and artistic studios. The published responses of Kostroma club members were filled with enthusiastic praise. "Our comrades fill up the room," wrote one. "The piano starts playing. The telephone rings. The lecturer begins his talk. I listen and absorb everything into my head and try not to lose anything new and bright."[90]
Although most other circles could not match the variety of Kostroma's programs, they nonetheless were popular gathering spots for the laboring population. Workers and employees supported clubs through dues, payroll deductions, and special
[87] Gorn , no. 2/3 (1919), pp. 126–27; no. 5 (1920), pp. 71–80, 86–87.
[88] Gudki , no. 1 (1919), p. 4; no. 2 (1919), p. 27; and Gorn , no. 5 (1920), pp. 86–87.
[89] M. Rostopchina, "Kul'tura nasha," Sbornik Kostromskogo Proletkul'ta , no. 1 (1919), pp. 6, 10.
[90] "Vpechatleniia rabochikh ot klubnoi zhizni," ibid., p. 36.
― 188 ―
fees for public events. Club cafeterias were an important source of food in hungry cities and towns, and when supplies were scarce, attendance suffered. Libraries distributed newspapers, journals, and books, and program committees offered lectures, classes, and discussion groups. At the Kamenka factory "Proletklub" workers and employees took part in artistic circles, literacy courses, and listened to lectures on scientific themes like "What is Electricity?" Popular public readings familiarized members with the works of Tolstoi, Gogol, Lermontov, and even Uncle Tom's Cabin .[91]
Despite this evidence of a lively network, central organizers were often dissatisfied with local accomplishments. One problem was that many Proletkults had no clubs at all. This was the case in Kolpino and Polekova, even though both had fairly successful artistic studios. The same was true for the larger groups in Archangel and Ekaterinburg.[92] Organizers directed familiar complaints to Moscow. They did not have the staff, the funds, or the space to open clubs. One Tver activist reported that work there had gotten off to a very slow start because neither of the city's major factories could provide rooms for club activities.[93]
But existing clubs did not please the critics either. These circles were faulted either because of their "strictly educational" approach or because of the low level of their cultural work. The ideal mix of education, creation, and conviviality was difficult to find.[94] At the Proletkult club in the Pudemskii factory, Viatka province, there were no lectures or special classes. The only educational component consisted of public readings from Proletarian Culture . Instead, activities revolved around a lively theater that performed classic and contempo-
[91] April 1, 1919, protocol of a local club meeting, TsGALI f. 1230, op. 1, d. 1265, l.25.
[92] Local questionnaires from Kolpino, TsGALI f. 1230, op. 1, d. 430, l. 93; from Polekova, d. 117, l. 51; from Archangel, d. 117, ll. 77–77 ob.; and from Ekaterinburg, d. 117, ll. 80–80 ob.