An Outstanding Bolshevik Forged in the Steel of Revolution

– N. Ribar –

Andrei Aleksandrovich Zhdanov was born February 26, 1896 in Mariupol — 127 years have passed since his birth. In such a great span of time, one must go back all those years to formulate a synthesis of his life’s work and achievements.

At just 16 (1912), he joined the Russian revolutionary movement and at 19 (1915) became a member of the great Bolshevik Party to which he was to dedicate his life. On the eve of and throughout the October Revolution and Civil War, he was to distinguish himself for his outstanding capabilities as an organizer and a disciple of the great Lenin — he became a member of the Tver committee of the Party in 1916, conducted rigorous party work with the 139th Reserve Regiment of the Russian Army in Shadrinsk in 1917, became a member of the regimental committee and the chairman of the first soviet in Shadrinsk after the February Revolution, became the chairman of the Shadrinsk committee of the Party in August 1917, did extensive political work among the Red Army in the Urals and Tver and was editor of the newspaper Tverskaia Pravda from 1918 to 1920, and became the chairman of the Tver provincial executive committee in 1922.

After the death of Lenin in 1924, he immediately sprung up as one of the most devoted cadres in support of the popular Soviet government against the unpopular and nihilistic Opposition, the Bloc of Trotskyites and Rights. From 1924 to 1934 he was secretary of the Nizhny Novgorod provincial party committee and secretary of the Gorky regional committee of the CPSU(b). Recognized at once for his work, he became a candidate member of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) at the 14th Congress in 1925, and became a full member at the 16th Congress in 1930. Serving as Secretary of the CC of the CPSU(b) on ideology starting in 1934, he gave a speech at the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers that year — exposing bourgeois ideology in literature for its bankruptcy and elaborating some key tents of the new writer. He stated that there is nowhere to be inspired in bourgeois society, that the writer sees poverty, misery and unemployment, such a decline and decay also reflecting on the character of the work writers produce — they either accurately reflect what they are seeing, fixed in some sort of spirit of dread or conjure up some wild deformation of life to make it “tolerable.” The former represents the exploited intellectual who is by nature pessimistic, while the latter represents the higher strata that have sold their pens even further out, hiding the ills of a decaying mode of production. Seeing that all art is ideological art (as it reflects a certain social basis and formation in the individual regardless of one’s consciousness of it), the subject of the new literature must be the new Soviet man, their productive and creative activity, etc., and as Stalin said, only those writers can become “engineers of the human soul.” To the individuals who decry “art for art’s sake,” arguing for an ideological-less art, it can only be said, as Zhdanov does, that the ideology of socialist art is merely the end of all exploitation, to free man from all yokes and class oppressions. See the real life, the real struggles, the real heroism, the real progressive class and its future successes, and only then can the individual be imbued with a socialist-oriented educational art. Lastly, Zhdanov makes clear that as bourgeois society has thrown all the artistic gains made against the medievalists asunder, it is the work of the worker and communist artists to lift that banner and carry it forward.

In February 1935, Zhdanov achieved the role of candidate member of the Political Bureau of the CC of the CPSU(b). In this position, he delivered a key report on February 27, 1937, one which has been subject to ruthless suppression since the day it was uttered by various enemies of the Bolshevik Party, both externally and internally. It was a session that took up the issue of bureaucracy inside the Party, and notably, not Stalin, but Zhdanov, delivered the main report. One section of the resolution published in the March 6, 1937 Pravda stemming from the final report stated: “Whereas earlier the elections to the middle and higher bodies of the Soviet power had been multi-degree, under the new Constitution elections to all councils from rural and urban up to the Supreme Soviet will be by direct election by the citizens. Whereas previously the councils were elected by open ballot and by lists, now the voting in elections to the councils will be by secret ballot and not by lists, but by individual candidates nominated by electoral districts.” That is, it would be the base that would choose all the candidates for election and not the Party, a truly democratic form of people’s power. Such a resolution faced stubborn resistance from the bureaucracy within the Bolshevik Party, and they soon found their pretext to never put it into place: the unveiling of Trotskyite and Right elements and the beginning of the so-called Yezhovschina. As is known, Yezhov later admitted to committing grave excesses, concealing facts from the Party leadership and actively deceiving them as to what the dangers were. That scare made the Soviet leaders back off this resolution and believe in the need for temporary stability with the Party at the head. But no doubt, if such a resolution was implemented it would have certainly meant the lessening of the chance for a negative event to occur such as that after Stalin’s death. When the power of the country lies with the absolute and equal right of each elector to be elected, it becomes much more difficult for a bureaucratic gang to impose usurpation from above. Nevertheless, this resolution authored by Comrade Zhdanov was a first in the history of the world, a watershed, and informed later socialist projects which have embarked on such a correct method of democracy and debureaucratization.

If before the Great Patriotic War Zhdanov’s work was history-making, it would be during and after the war that would define his legacy. On the eve of the war in 1939, he became a full member of the Political Bureau of the CC of the CPSU(b). Since December 1934, being the secretary of the Leningrad regional and municipal party committees, he led the city’s defence through the military soviet during the Great Patriotic War, earning the rank of Colonel General in 1944 for his militant spirit and leadership in smashing the nazi siege and crime against humanity in that city. After the war had been concluded, he once again returned to the all-important ideological question, revolutionizing the masses and invigorating the new generations with a communist uplifting culture.

His beloved Leningrad, which had just fought so hard and lost so much, was immediately subject to the incredulous slanders which passed for “culture” in Mikhail Zoshchenko’s Adventures of a Monkey story and various poems by Anna Akhmatova, both in Leningrad cultural journals. The former story has a monkey supreme as judge of the Soviet people, their customs, heritage and life, slandering it and insisting that even the life of a monkey is superior to the new society free of exploitation of persons by persons. Is this any way to represent those heroic peoples who had just shed so much blood in the anti-fascist world war? Zoshchenko, being a well-known member of the literary group “Serapion Brothers,” proclaimed to espouse no ideology, but such a claim was a cloak to sneak bourgeois ideology into the first socialist country. The latter, poems of Anna Akhmatova, were riddled with extreme hopelessness, the cult of “fate,” stories written by an aristocrat longing for an age when art was the feast of “trained professionals” and not the masses. Such were her individualistic poems of sadness, death, longing and religious mysticism. She was a member of a similarly reactionary literary group, the Acmeists, whose aristocratic-Tsarist outlook went so far as an open call for going “back to the middle ages.” What slanders against the high moral fabric and intelligence of the Soviet peoples were these two anti-people expressions of “culture.” Unfortunately, this represented a much greater trend than these two individuals, and the whole framework of Leningrad culture needed to be completely uprooted and replaced.

Comrade Zhdanov, intervening in this situation on behalf of the CC of the CPSU(b) and with the backing of the whole working class, outlined a number of very important principles for literary works: that in bourgeois culture (of which there were not a few remnants) form is often overrated and not enough attention is given to content; that people’s social activity should guide literature and not one’s personal feelings or sensations; that meaningless entertainment, without a high cultural content, is not worthy of the developed tastes of the socialist working class; that, seeing things from the new, literature should be imbued with a strong sense of optimism, the sense all the Soviet peoples felt in defeating nazi-fascism during the Great Patriotic War; that literature should always be political, social and educational in essence, because all literature is whether or not it will admit so openly; that works must serve the people, since one cannot live in society and also be free of obligation to it; that in bourgeois society, culture gives the illusion of “artistic freedom” but in fact the intelligentsia is dependent on the capitalist class for sustenance and must follow its publishing standards to make a living, its culture being rotten at the base and filled with egomania; that when internal reactionaries are poisoning the youth with a pessimistic and hopeless view of life, there must be a political intervention; that the Party must always be in the processes of raising the people’s tastes to a higher and higher level; that, like everything else in socialist society, disorder and anarchy cannot be tolerated in culture; that nobody can be afraid of criticism and must constantly self-criticize; and that writers must be in the forefront of developments, seeing things as they are playing out and will play out, being the vanguard of the people’s expressions. These principles bring literature not down, but up, extending its character to the vast majority of people and not simply a hide-bound elite.

On another occasion, he set out to criticize the very harmful output in musical production, naming various Soviet composers as offenders. Pre-war, music had been left behind, so to speak, in the USSR, and the trend of formalism took hold, the dictate of a certain elite with old ideas about organization and musical standards. This went so far that there was no such thing as criticism of discussion about music, they would simply applaud some “great composer,” as certainly he “knew best” because of his status and position. This led to stagnation; whenever you have no criticism and no discussion, you get haughty artists who think they have everything figured out and no progress can be made because no improvements are shared. Moreover, in combination with the trend of formalism, which stressed “individual tastes,” often vulgar and imported music became prominent. A very dangerous situation was created indeed. These composers even openly bragged that their music was not for the people — the question must then be raised: who is it then for?

Similar to literature, Comrade Zhdanov laid down many key principles of musical creation, some of which can be applied to other forms of culture: that the bourgeois “internationalization of culture” (cosmopolitanism) is nothing more than a cloaked foreign importation to displace national culture and to degenerate the people’s tastes with bourgeois culture in its last imperialist stage; that true internationalism, which is proletarian, has nothing in common with this cosmopolitanism; that, on the contrary to accusations of nationalism, all that is progressively from other cultures must be shared; that folk music, which was created and treasured by the people for dozens of generations, must be utilized in modern music as it cannot be defined by narrow egoism by definition; that obscure or unsimple music that the masses cannot understand is worth less than the cost to produce it; that not all “innovations” conjured up in the minds of persons are always progressive; that the relationship between melody and rhythm should be dialectical, the latter should not be preferred as the bourgeoisie so often does; that too many clashes, noises and instruments should not be used, so as not to remind the audience more of a dentist’s drill than a rational expression of human intellect; and that vulgar, ugly and crude music actually cannot be considered music at all, for it ignores human emotion and is purely meant to jar the mind. In the last case, Zhdanov borrows Engels’ famous statement in Dialectics of Nature that dialectics takes its revenge on those who turn against it — “Music has taken revenge on those who have attempted to mutilate it.” One can see just how important these principles are when one witnesses modern decadent bourgeois music.

Third in the set of post-war cultural interventions by Comrade Zhdanov was on philosophy, to criticize a certain textbook on the history of philosophy by “Comrade Alexandrov.” Here is it not necessary to draw out the particular problems with his book, but only take certain lessons from the criticisms. Some key principles from this criticism are: that one must illuminate concepts with concrete examples and not leave anything up to the imagination; that opposing another class’ ideas along philosophical lines is not harmful, rather the bourgeois “professionalization” of philosophy that sees others as associates is harmful, as dangerous trends are therefore not combatted; that analyses of society must not be dry and mechanical but full of life, grasping its full essence and describing it in rich details (meaning that it is not enough to say a situation is bad, one must describe the daily drudgery of the oppressed); that verbosity in explanations is not worthy of a textbook to have a mass character, and this is how all philosophy should be, as it is not only for some high-chair “philosophers” but for the masses themselves; that to cease criticism means to stagnate ideologically and thus rob Marxism of its greatest feature, its capacity for development, and to turn it into an ordinary bourgeois dogma; that in socialist society, development does not proceed by means of antagonisms but by means of criticism and self-criticism; that in the new period Anglo-American reaction has taken up all the reactionary philosophy, defends even medievalism and so on; and that new socialist philosophers needed to tackle the problems of the national liberation movement of the colonies as an emerging phenomenon. These general principles still hold true in our ideological-philosophy work today in building the new society.

Perhaps Comrade Zhdanov’s most important contribution was to the formation of the Information Bureau of Communist and Workers’ Parties, shortened as Cominform, to co-ordinate the activities of the Marxist-Leninist parties closer after the dissolution of the Comintern. A key aspect of this was the report he delivered in September 1947 entitled The International Situation, a truly incredible document with tremendous foresight into the present. The report was divided into four sections from which I will take key relevant points: the current world situation, the formation of two camps — democratic and imperialist, the U.S. plan for world domination and the tasks of the communist parties.

On the world situation at the time, Zhdanov first outlined how the Anglo-Americans relied on the nazis in the pre-war situation in an attempt to destroy the USSR, the bastion of the new world and socialism. New developments stipulated that the bourgeois-democratic revolution was far outdated, that it could no longer even consider land reform, nationalization or confiscation of property from traitors; only the state power of the working class could effect such changes. British imperialism was losing its territories and was on the decline, while U.S. imperialism went on the ascent. The colonies no longer wished to live in the old way and launched national liberation movements, and therefore U.S. warmongering increased, increasing war profits exponentially. It was out for the socialist camp, out for the peoples of the colonies, and did so in league with the nazi and fascist collaborationists in liberated countries. Towards the USSR specifically, Zhdanov pointed out: “The feverish piling up of armaments, the construction of new military bases and the creation of bridgeheads for the American armed forces in all parts of the world is justified on the false and pharisaical grounds of ‘defence’ against an imaginary threat of war…” 76 years later and this is still the case!

On the formation of two camps, Zhdanov noted that the imperialist and anti-democratic camp was headed by the U.S., and their allies Britain and France, while the anti-imperialist and democratic camp was led by the USSR, and their allies the countries of people’s democracy. This period was marked by the U.S. supporting all reaction around the world, no matter its crimes, violating international agreements blatantly, and subverting the principles outlined in the United Nations Charter. In all, they had departed from the peaceful path which Roosevelt idealistically envisioned, and they have not changed their direction in that departure whatsoever since, nor can they.

On the U.S. plan for world domination, not only was the U.S. striving and supporting all the most reactionary elements, but it was also beginning an offensive against the most elementary rights of the proletarians in its own country, a precursor to today’s anti-social offensive. It had already held total sway over the countries of Canada and the UK, accused, advocated for a U.S.-led world government, issued the reactionary Truman Doctrine (stipulating that they would support anyone who opposed the Soviets), bound Europe by enslaving credits issued in the Marshall Plan, interfered and decided basically every ministerial appointment and decision within the Greek reactionary government, etc. In regards to aggression against the USSR and the democratic camp, they had already deployed their golden accusation, “totalitarianism”: “…The American imperialists, who have no great insight into political questions, demonstrate their ignorance by laying primary stress on the allegation that the Soviet Union is undemocratic and totalitarian, while the United States and Great Britain and the whole capitalist world are democratic. On this platform of ideological struggle — on this defence of bourgeois pseudo-democracy and condemnation of communism as totalitarian — are united all the enemies of the working class without exception…” They utilized, in this regard, the sold-out labour aristocratic leaders at the head of the social-democratic parties to slander the Soviet Union as being some sort of pseudo-socialism while western democracy was allegedly the greatest system ever achieved. Nor was this solely ideological — the U.S. even used blackmail to secure loyalty, such as insisting that for France to get their loans, they must expel the communists from their government. The path forward for the anti-imperialist and democratic world, Comrade Zhdanov stressed, was the primary insistence on international accumulation and industrialization, and that U.S. credits could only provide enslavement. These statements, too, have borne out spectacularly in the period of a single superpower striving for sole hegemony over all spheres of influence and markets.

On the unity of the communist parties in the face of imperialist dangers, Comrade Zhdanov observed that since the Comintern’s dissolution, parties had been too far apart, worried that they would be seen as Moscow’s agents. These errors were wholly incorrect, and while each party should have been more independent than they had been previously, they should never have forgotten proletarian internationalism as an indispensable principle of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, the parties which had already taken power needed to oppose imperialism more resolutely, and the ones who were not in power needed to take up the banner of the nation and struggle against those who were attempting to take away all their national sovereignty for U.S. imperialist profits.

With the Cominform’s formation soon after, Comrade Zhdanov was chosen by the CPSU(b) to represent the Soviet view of the Yugoslav situation at the famous June 1948 Bucharest meeting. Ignoring the comradely criticisms of Stalin in his letters and showing supreme arrogance, siding with the U.S. imperialists over the socialist camp, the Yugoslav Titoites were thus expelled from the Cominform. Soon after, Comrade Zhdanov died under highly dubious circumstances.

Andrei Zhdanov’s status both in his time and after, among all Marxist-Leninist Communists, has been among the most prestigious of all Bolsheviks. In the Stalin period, he was perhaps the second most significant. He was, indeed, one of Comrade Stalin’s closest comrades and most trusted functionaries. He was a peerless fighter for the new socialist order, for the end of exploitation and wage slavery, and for the end of imperialism. In his own time, he was awarded two orders of Lenin, four other orders and various medals. His tragic death came at a time when the world communist movement was making its most incredible gains, and indeed a year later People’s China triumphed over the Kuomintang reactionaries and the socialist camp extended to a third of the world. Shortly after, however, his beloved country turned against Marxism-Leninism and collaborated and colluded with U.S. imperialism. One of his main strengths in light of today’s world is his correct evaluation of the ratio of forces in the world, never underestimating the power of imperialism and stating plainly what it would do if it got its grip over the entire world. This is more than a matter of history, of remembering a good comrade; Comrade Zhdanov’s works, whether it be in culture, philosophy, deepening democracy or the international situation are a sharp weapon for the proletarians of the world to wield against their oppressors. We can learn much about the new world outlook; how to build an all-round alternative to the present moribund situation. In Shadrinsk, Comrade Zhdanov carried out great Lenin’s precept of dual power, building the new within the old, and was an integral part of that earth-shattering revolution which delivered a decisive blow to the imperialists, one which they have never fully recovered from. Let us carry Great October through to its end with Comrade Zhdanov’s works as sharp weapons to smash the old!

Glory to proletarian culture!
Down with imperialism!
Long live Marxism-Leninism!
The work of A.A. Zhdanov will live forever!

Artillery Lieutenant-General L.A. Govorov and Comrade A.A. Zhdanov in Smolny developing a plan to smash the siege of Leningrad, December 1942
J.V. Stalin at the head of the funeral procession of A. A. Zhdanov, September 2, 1948
Mourning rally in Mariupol on the occasion of the death of Comrade Zhdanov, September 2, 1948

One thought on “An Outstanding Bolshevik Forged in the Steel of Revolution

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *