Amelia Lindsay-Kaufman

Science and Technology in the Alternate Reality of Socialist Realism

The idea of creating an alternative reality is built into the definition of Socialist Realism.

The dual and sometimes contradictory requirements of Socialist Realism - that it depict reality,

and that it show reality in its revolutionary development1 - result almost inevitably in the

warping of reality in the universe depicted by the Socialist Realist works. In an artistic regime

where almost all art produced in a society portrays this same warped universe, the reality that is

depicted will take on its own legitimacy alongside actual reality and the distinction between the

two realities will blend. The idea of altering reality goes back to the art of the Avant-Garde,

which aimed to distil reality and break down existence into more basic ideas,2 but in Socialist

Realism the new reality that was generated was much more pervasive than the simplified reality

of the Avant-Garde. Technology played an important role in this process, symbolizing mankind’s

progression into the socialist, utopian future. Technology acted in Socialist Realist philosophy as

both a replacement for bourgeois art forms and as a means of enabling mastery over nature.

Socialist Realist art took place in a complete and total alternate reality, and the idea of

technology as a means of conquering nature and replacing art contributed to the building of this

reality.

The new reality within Socialist Realism was created through altered depictions of the

past, through symbolism and codification in art, and through the placement of seeds of the future

in depictions of the present. Soviet historical fiction (which is not quite Socialist Realism, but

occurs within the same artistic regime) depicts the past with overtones of ideology pertaining to

the Soviet present, and also changed historical events to better fit Soviet values. Eisenstein’s film

Ivan the Terrible officially took place in the 16th century, but the story of Ivan IV in the film is
an allegory for the story of Stalin.3 The boyars in the beginning of the film represent the internal

enemies of the Soviet Union, and many of the characters represent political figures surrounding

Stalin (for instance Kurbsky, Ivan’s ally who then betrays him, represents Trotsky). The film’s

depiction of the relationship between Ivan and the Russian people is meant to reaffirm Stalin’s

statues as a leader of the people. Eisenstein’s other film Alexander Nevsky is also a historical

film officially depicting the past but really portraying Soviet ideology with Nevsky as the classic

Socialist Realist positive hero and the Teutonic knights as the Nazi-esque, religious Soviet

enemies.4 These depictions of the past with Soviet values inserted in changed the people’s

understanding of the past, therefore creating a new, more socialist past as part of the new

Socialist Realist reality. The inaccurate depiction of the Battle on Ice in Alexander Nevsky, in

which the Germans drown in the lake (when in real life there is no evidence for this having

happened)5 also supplanted the real version of events in popular consciousness and therefore

created a new past that concretely diverged from the actual past. The new present was created

through altered depictions of reality in art taking place in the present. The gradual usurpation of

Lenin by Stalin in poster art showed a shift in the Socialist Realist reality from Lenin’s

ideological dominance in the Soviet Union to Stalin’s.6 This truth in the alternate reality

precipitated a political shift in the real universe as Stalin amassed more power, because blending

between the two realities made it seem as if the shift had already happened. The alternate present

was also influenced by temporal schizophrenia - the placement of objects and concepts

associated with the near future in environments from the present, or the simultaneous

presentation of “what is” and “what ought to be”.7 Plausible but unlikely or uncommon

technology placed in paintings, such as the electrical towers and trains in Serafima Riangina’s

painting “Higher and Higher”, served to create an alternate present that was slightly further along
in its revolutionary development towards the Ideal Future than the actual reality.8 The future in

this alternate reality was depicted as being utopian and perfect. The utopian future depicted in

Chernyshevsky’s 1863 novel What is to be Done? served as a template for later Soviet portrayals

of the future,9 such as the utopian socialist society on Mars in Bogdanov’s novel Red Star.

Altogether an entire alternate timeline was created within the universe of Socialist Realism,

differing significantly from the real universe in its more total inclusion of Soviet ideology and

more direct progression to the utopian socialist future.

Science fit into this alternate reality in such a way that it did not reflect natural laws, as

science does in actual reality, but so that it confirmed principles already advocated by socialist

ideology. The most well-known example of reshaping science to fit ideology was when Stalin

advocated neo-Lamarckism over Mendelian inheritance and natural selection. In the 1920s

genetic research in the Soviet Union was flourishing and many notable accomplishments in the

field of genetics were made by Soviet scientists. One particularly successful plant geneticist, N.I.

Vavilov, developed an extensive long-term plant breeding program to increase yield in crops and

improve their resistance to drought and insects. However food shortages under Stalin caused the

government to frantically search for new techniques of increasing yield without waiting long

enough properly test the methods. Trofim Lysenko, a plant breeder from Ukraine, quickly rose to

the top of the Soviet agricultural hierarchy by proposing several techniques that would

supposedly dramatically improve crop yields. He advocated a process called vernalization, which

involved subjecting seeds to cold conditions in order to make them and their descendants flower

faster, and also believed that crops could transmute into other species if they were subjected to

the right conditions. Stalin, who associated genetics with Nazism and disliked Mendel because

he was a priest, was sympathetic to Lysenko’s ideas and implemented his agricultural methods.
Farmers, knowing that Stalin supported Lysenko, reported higher yields than they actually had in

order to make their yields seem consistent with Lysenko’s theory, so Lysenko collected

inaccurate data showing that his methods worked. Genetics, which was in opposition to

Lysenko’s work, was banned in the Soviet Union and many geneticists were arrested, including

Vavilov, whose methods were criticized because they did not produce results fast enough.10 In

this time period Stalin rejected Darwinian genetics, which have been shown to be correct in

reality, and advocated instead another system of inheritance similar to Lamarck’s theory that

traits acquired during an organism’s lifetime could be passed on to later generations, not because

it was right but because it better fit his ideology. Later in the Soviet Union during the space race,

symbols and ideology were also considered more important than actual science. Before the

launch of Sputnik two copies of the satellite were made - one to be put into orbit and one for

ground tests and simulations. The copy that was sent to space was polished beforehand to

prevent overheating and so that it would reflect more light and be more visible from Earth

(visibility was important because the satellite’s primary purpose was to intimidate and impress

people), but the head of the program, Sergei Korolev, was reportedly outraged when he found

out that the ground copy had not also been polished. The ground copy had no functions which

required it to be polished, but it was the copy that would be seen by more people since it would

be put in a museum after the launch. Korolev also stressed the importance of the spherical shape

of the satellite, claiming that it must “look properly” because it was a symbol of humankind’s

entry into space. Korolev overall valued space artifacts for their symbolic function over their

scientific function. He also altered the public conception (and thus the alternate reality) of space-

related events; he refused to let reporters attend Yuri Gagarin’s launch into space, but later

staged a photoshoot of himself “communicating” with the astronaut.11 In the Soviet Union
scientific research was less about a search for truth and more about creating a narrative within

the alternate reality in which science confirmed existing principles.

Technology in the high Stalinist period was seen above all as a means of exerting

dominance over the natural world. This can be seen in a popular idiom which appeared on

several posters from the time period: “Мы не можем ждать милостей от природы, взять их -

наша задача” (“we cannot expect kindness from nature, we must take it ourselves”). This idea

can also be traced back to the Avant-Garde period; Kazimir Malevich’s movement of

Suprematism was centered on the idea of using geometric shapes to exert dominance over nature.

The electrical wires and trains that appeared frequently in poster art reflected the excitement that

people felt about making rural areas accessible and more livable with the use of technology.

Posters celebrating exploration of the Arctic and celebrating flight also show technology

conquering nature. The poster “Glory to the Stalinist Falcons - Conquerors of the element of

Air!” by Deni & Dolgorukov from 1937 specifically uses the word “conquer” in the context of

the natural world.12 Kirillov’s 1918 poem “The Iron Messiah” describes technology destroying

the imperfect past world and creating a new world free from the burdens of nature: “Wherever he

walks he leaves a trail, Of ringing iron rail; He brings joy and light to us, A desert he strews with

blossoms.”13 Technology was also seen as a replacement for bourgeois art forms. In Bogdanov’s

novel Red Star, most of the art in the Martian city is functional or has been altogether replaced

with machines. One character explains, “Powerful machines and their precise movements are

aesthetically pleasing to us in and of themselves.”14 In the Martian society art and technology are

essentially synonymous. Interestingly the only conflict in the Martian society is their lack of

resources and their harsh natural environment. This serves to emphasize the role of nature as an

enemy in the Socialist Realist reality. The literary group Smithy (Кузница) wrote poetry, and
later prose, full of mechanical language and praise for technology.15 Gladkov was a member of

this group, and the emphasis on the beauty of machines can be seen in his novel Cement. The

Palace of the Soviets, though it was never built because the ground could not support it, was

planned to be the tallest skyscraper in the world. Its size itself would have served as a symbol of

technology conquering nature, in the sense of architecture being used to achieve heights that

would naturally be inaccessible to humans. The technological infeasibility of the building is a

perfect example of the conflict between “what is” and “what ought to be” in real life. The

impossibility of the Palace of Soviets did not prevent its existence from bleeding through from

the Socialist Realist reality into the physical reality; the concept of the Palace was so pervasive

that post-WWII architects designed skyscrapers to fit the aesthetic of a skyline that included the

palace as if it were actually there.16

Technology was not only to be used to improve nature for mankind’s benefit, but also to

improve mankind for the benefit of the country. The theme of the mechanization of humans

appears in several works, for instance the 1918 poem “We Grow out of Iron” by Gastev

describes humans being improved by mechanization: “I look at them and grow straight, Fresh

iron blood pours into my veins. I have grown taller. I too am growing shoulders of steel and arms

immeasurably strong. I am one with the building’s iron.17” In Bogdanov’s Red Star men and

women in the Martian society have started to look alike due to performing similar tasks with the

same technology, which follows the same neo-Lamarckian system of adaption that was

advocated under Stalin and also follows the same idea of humanity improving itself physically.

Susan Buck-Morss writes about how the Soviet fascination with machines was more symbolic

than practical, as the machine cult developed before the actual machines did: “Machine culture

under Western Capitalism was adaptive to an already existing level of industrialization. In the
late nineteenth century Frederick Winslow Taylor devised his "scientific management" of labor

... treating human beings as machines in order to get the most efficient production out of them”.

However, in the Soviet Union Taylor’s methods were implemented in a system that lacked the

infrastructure to support them: “In this still pre-industrial context, human bodies practicing the

rhythm of machines were like shamans practicing magic, mimicking a desired state in order to

bring it into existence.”18 Several Socialist Realist works focus on the transformation from

human to machine. In Olesha’s novel Envy the character Volodya is striving to become like a

human machine, “What I envy is the machine. There's something! Why am I worse than the

machine? We invented it, we created it, but it turned out to be much fiercer than we are.”19 Stalin

also famously described Socialist Realist writers as “Engineers of the human soul”. Not only

does this phrase embody the idea of improving humans, the word “engineers” also implies that

human souls must be mechanical. In the alternate reality erected by Socialist Realism humans

can almost literally become machines, and natural processes are replaced whenever possible with

mechanical ones.

The version of reality that was depicted in most Socialist Realist works was generally

consistent with itself, and was so pervasive in Soviet society that it took on a semi-real existence

on its own. This reality was characterized not only by its ideological content and heavy

symbolism, but also by its depictions of science and technology. The “natural” laws of science

were altered to conform to the revolutionary ideology of Socialist Realism, and technology

played an aesthetic role (rather than a purely practical one) of replacing nature, humans and art.

Technology also appears in Socialist Realist works in order to represent the near future.

Technological objects in many works, especially paintings, become localized temporal portals

where the utopian future is showing through into the present in order to demonstrate that the
present is progressing in the right direction. Altogether technology in the alternate reality of

Socialist Realism plays a much more symbolic role, acting as a representation for dominance

over nature and for the evolution of society.

1
A.A Zhdanov, “Soviet Literature – The Richest in Ideas, The Most Advanced Literature,” 15-27
in Problems of Soviet Literature: Reports and Speeches at the First Soviet Writers’ Congress. London:
Martin Lawrence, [1934] Course pack page 7
2
Beraha, Laura. "High Stalinist Culture Lecture." McGill. 28 Jan. 2016. Lecture.
3
Ivan Grozny. Ivan the Terrible. Part 1. Ivan the Terrible. Dir. Sergei Eisenstein. By Sergei Eisenstein, Ė
Tisse, and Sergey Prokofiev. S.n., 1944.
4
Alexander Nevsky. Dir. Sergei Eisenstein. Mosfilm, 1937.
5
Ostrowski, Don. "Alexander Nevskii's "Battle on the Ice": The Creation of a Legend." Academia.edu.
Harvard University, 2006. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
6
Beraha, Laura. "High Stalinist Culture Lecture." McGill. 10 Mar. 2016. Lecture.
7
Clark, Katerina. The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1981. Print.
8
Riangina, Serafima. Higher and Higher. 1934. Painting. N.p.
9
"Russian Thought Lecture 10: Utopias in Russian Culture: Of Palaces and Panopticons." Sarah J Young.
N.p., 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
10
Gaglioti, Frank. "World Socialist Web Site." The Fate of Soviet Genetics -. N.p., 4 Oct. 1996. Web. 24
Apr. 2016.
11
Dick, Steven J. "Creating Memories: Myth, Identity, and Culture in the Russian Space
Age." Remembering the Space Age. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Office of External Relations, History Division, 2008. 219-20. Print.
12
Dolgorukov, and Deni. Glory to the Stalinist Falcons - Conquerors of the Element of Air. 1937. Poster.
N.p.
13
Vladimir Kirillov, “The Iron Messiah”, 4 in Mass Culture in Soviet Russia: Tales, Poems, Songs,
Movies, Plays, and Folklore 1917-1953 ed. James von Geldern and Richard Stites. Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1995. Course pack page 107
14
Alexander Bogdanov, “The Museum of Art”, chapter 4, 74-80 in his The Red Star: The First Bolshevik
Utopia, ed Loren R. Graham and Richard Stites. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1984 Course pack page 51
15
"ENCYLOPEDIA OF SOVIET WRITERS." Smithy (Kuznitsa). Sovlit, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
16
"Palace of the Soviets." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
17
Gastev, “We Grow Out of Iron”, 3 in Mass Culture in Soviet Russia: Tales, Poems, Songs, Movies,
Plays, and Folklore 1917-1953 ed. James von Geldern and Richard Stites. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana UP, 1995 Course pack page 105
18
Buck-Morss, Susan. "Common Sense." Dreamworld and Catastrophe: The Passing of Mass Utopia in
East and West. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000. 105. Print.
19
Olesha, Yuri Karlovich, and Andrew R. MacAndrew. "13." Envy: And Other Works. Garden City, NY:
Anchor, 1967. 63-64. Print.