Cement

by F. V. Gladkov

A classic of socialist realism, Cement became a model for Soviet fiction in the decades following its publication in the early 1920s. Gleb, a soldier hero, returns from the revolution to a world in transition, as demonstrated by the reorganization of the local cement factory for the massive national effort. His wife, Dasha, is now a leader of the Women's Section of the Communist Pary, an activist in a society where women are suddenly men's equals. Gleb finds that he cannot easily pick up the threads of their old relationship or adjust to this new social order.

Genres: Fiction, Russia, Russian Literature, Novels, Classics, 20th Century, Literature

311 pages, Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 1925

Reviews

[Polomoche · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most Westerners familiar with Russian Lit immediately cast this book into the 'not worthy of real literature/soviet propaganda' dustbin (I suspect because their prof told them to and, I would imagine, without even reading it). In comments below, for instance: "This book is only of academic interest... written as stalinist agitprop... bereft of any characterstics that would qualify the tome as literature."

A shame, because 'Cement' is a fascinating insight into the (granted, naive) spirit of post-revolutionary Soviet Russia. Historically it is a little like John Reed's 'Ten Days...': it captures very vividly a moment in time that is vital to understand if one wishes any insight on modern Russian History.

In terms of literature, while not on par with Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, what writer is??? If we were to use the 'great russian writer or bust' criteria for evaluation we'd eliminate the vast majority of novels ever penned. Gorky isn't there either (though better than Gladkov), but he's very good. Gladkov has his moments. His style is sparse, pithy, certainly prescient in terms of what was to come. Aesthetically something is afoot, mirroring the revolutionary changes taking place in the arts during this period - graphic art, Shostokovich, etc...

In short, a must read for anyone interested in the spectrum of Russian Lit. Give it a chance before you chalk it up to Soviet propaganda.

UPDATE: Having just read Lermontov's 'A Hero of Our Time' (highly recommend), I must say there is a terrible double standard in Russian literature. We forgive Lermontov's shaky prose just as we forgive Gogol for burning a good portion of 'Dead Souls' in his fireplace - all because of the moral, social, and historical merit that make both novels extraordinary.

'Cement' is just as extraordinary in this sense, yet for whatever reason is not forgiven for fairly mild literary shortcomings.

And yet we do know the reason. Criticism of 'Cement's mild literary shortcomings is merely a ruse for a general attack on the Soviet propaganda machine. And for good reason: we justifiably abhor the extent to which the Soviets oppressed people generally and the arts specifically.

But to make "Cement" a scapegoat for Soviet censorship, oppression, etc., is a serious mistake. This is a novel that captures very beautifully not only an important moment in history but also the nascent emergence of many modern issues and practices transcending early Soviet life. The emergence of day care, for instance. Or the rights of women. The novel in fact is centered very much on the difficult adjustment Gleb and Dasha must make in reuniting; their newly-defined relationship certainly resonates with contemporary issues. Franz Boas would have a field day.

It is time to dissociate the crude connection between Gladkov and what is now a very impotent/obsolete political discourse, and rediscover the worthy place 'Cement' occupies in Russian literature.

[A. Raca · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Çimentoyu iyi verirsen tutar. Çimento, biziz. Çimento işçi sınıfıdır."

"Duvar yok burada. Kitaplar var sadece. Boylu boyunca sıralar halinde yerden tavana doğru yükselen kitaplar var. Ne işe yarayacak bu kadar çok kitap? Bir adam kısacık ömrü boyunca okuyabilir mi bunları? Hiç korkmaz mı acaba? Bu kitapların, içindeki güneş özlemine, içindeki susamışlığa birer düşman gibi durduklarını sezinlemez mi hiç? "

Savaş sonrası kasabanın tek kaynağı çimento fabrikasının harabe olması, işçilerin eski günlerine dönmek için savaşmasını okuyoruz. Her şey dağılmış...
Ekim Devrimi ertesinde halkın uyum sağlama çalışmalarını, aile kavramının günden güne değişimini çok net anlamamızı sağlamış yazar....

[Ned Hanlon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cement is a very beautifully written book. It is also deeply, massively, disconcerting. I have recently learned the term "gas lighting"; it seems to show up mostly on the internet and describes a method of making a person distrust their own reality by offering and insisting upon a new one. Cement provides a terrifying example. The world you know is not the world of the characters in the book. But that's not by some conscious choice on their part; the rules of the world just work differently.

When a war hero arrives home we have certain expectations. He is from the country and so he revels in the pastoral bliss of his homeland: the trees, the rolling hills, the flowering dales. Gleb, the hero of Cement (or is he?), has no interest in these things; it is the factory, the turbines and the diesel engines that bring tears of joy to his eyes. And it's just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! It's a new reality that, as reader, I am forced to accept for the sake of the narrative. But if I accept it for the reading, it becomes harder to reject it in life.

Nearing the end of the novel I had a problem. I had no idea if the book was going to have a happy ending or a sad ending. Of course that did not matter as I would have no idea what a "happy" or "sad" ending would have entailed. (No-spoiler alert: I have literally no idea if that ending was "happy" or "sad") So in some respects the book failed to fully incorporate me into the reality.

The end result is deeply troubling and, more than anything I have ever read or watched, has taught me about the terror of the Cold War. More than the grueling personal narratives of the gulag, the dark comedy of movies, the ominous warnings of dystopian fiction or even the stories of my parents hiding under their school desks during air raid drills. Those deal with a war of people, but Cement? Cement launches a war of realities. And that is truly scary.

[Andrew Galbraith · Rating 2 out of 5]

I may have contributed to the collapse of my book club by suggesting "Cement."

I became aware of the novel in university thanks to a professor of Russian history who proclaimed it "the only readable work of socialist realist fiction" (I didn't read it until years later). To the extent that it's an *interesting* book from a historical and political perspective, that may be true. But I wouldn't call it a *good* book.

It's possible that the prose in the original Russian is less turgid, as I've heard that the only available English translation is poor. But it reads much as you'd expect a socialist realist work about the reopening of a cement factory to read.

As a student of Russian history, I'm glad I finally read it, and I would be interested in reading the book again if a new translation were ever offered. It's also worth noting that one member of my book club loved it and was inspired to seek out similar works (the rest sentenced me to a self-criticism session). But unless you have a specific interest in Soviet history and art, I find it very hard to recommend.

[Maggie Dakin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The most interesting part of Cement was its treatment of romantic love. The metaphor of love as cannibalism- not in the usual “I want to consume you” sense, but as a kind of violence that strips someone of their humanity. Gleb is called “stupid” multiple times for loving, and the novel seems to frame love itself as incompatible with communism, since it implies possession or ownership of another person. I didn’t love the book overall, but that idea lingered with me.

[Eren Buğlalılar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Güzel bir sosyalist gerçekçi roman. Sovyet Devrimi'nin ilk yıllarında, bir kasabadaki çimento fabrikasını yeniden çalışır hale getirmek için verilen mücadeleleri anlatıyor. Hem kasabadaki parti organı içinde, hem de halkla yaşanan çelişkileri Dasha ve Gleb isimli iki karakter aracılığıyla gösteriyor.

Kadın-erkek ilişkileri, yeni bir kadının yaratılması için verilen mücadele ve bunun olumlu olumsuz sonuçları Sovyet romanlarında alışık olmadığımız kadar açık bir şekilde anlatılmış. Aydın psikolojisinin devrimci mücadeleyle düştüğü anlaşmazlığın, aydının kendini aşma çabasının ele alınış biçimi ilginçti. Kitabın üçte ikilik bölümünden sonra kurgu biraz tavsıyor, çelişkiler karmaşık bir hal aldıkça onları ana çelişkiye bağlayan kollar gevşiyor. Bu nedenle başlardaki heyecan ve zindelik sonlara doğru azalıyor.

[Oğulcan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rus devrimi sırasında 3 senedir iç savaşta olan Gleb köyüne geri döndüğünde köyünü bıraktığını gibi bulacağı gibi düşünür. Ancak her şey değişmiştir. Karısı bambaşka birisi olmuş, köyün lokomotifi olan çimento fabrikası harabe hale dönmüştür. Devrimin sahipleri işçiler açlıktan kırılıyor, fabrikayı yağmalıyordu. Kısacası açlıktan,fakirlikten kırılıyordu. Hani devrim gelince hayat bambaşka olacaktı? Ve Gleb kolları sıvar. İşte bu olayların çevresinde gerçekleşen dönemin toplumunu, insanlığın halini ve işçilerin umutlarını görebileceğiniz güzel bir devrim romanı.

[Diane · Rating 3 out of 5]

The political allegory is difficult to make sense of (Mensheviks vs those who support Lenin's New Economic Plan of 1921), but the books is still very interesting in the way it portrays life in the years immediately after the Revolution of 1917. The move to a mixed economy of nationalization and private capital which was still government policy in 1925 when the book was published would just a few years later be condemned and its supporters executed by Stalin. The novel is thus full of self-contradictions: the version I read was the original one which was revised several times during the Stalinist era--so I don't know if this perspective was allowed to stand. The novel is billed as an example of Soviet Realism, with its idealized descriptions of labor, machinery and the Russian landscape. But also, while extoling the Revolution's sexual and economic liberation of women, it romanticizes motherhood (the child dies for lack of mother love after being put in a childcare cooperative); and rape is portrayed as a scene from a sleazy romance novel: " Then suddenly she felt the flood of his hands, lips an nostrils surging upon her; then followed a languor, a wave of feminine weakness, of confused delight and fear."

There are vivid scenes of sacking the homes of the bourgeoise and the demand by the Revolution that true believers be willing not only to denounce but condemn to death their own family members. These don't, it seems to me, idealize the Revolution as much as show its desire purely to destroy everything that has gone before, including the cement factory, the country's economic productivity and its ability to feed the people. It shows vividly what that common saying among the Revolutionaries (especially Stalin) that you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs really meant: executions, starvation, laying waste of the land. As the heroes of the novel justify the need for a "cleansing," there is an eerie foreshadowing of the Stalinist purges that will occur in just a few years. It seems to me that despite Gladkov's clear commitment to the Party, the book goes beyond pure propaganda, that despite his own intension the novel portrays ambivalence about the Revolution and perhaps fears about the future. In one of the final scenes, there is a corpse of a baby, on whose head is the red scarf worn by women Party loyalists. Is it that the Revolution of the Old Bolsheviks, of the idealists, has died and something more practical must emerge? Or has the future itself, the next generation, been killed by zealots?

[Harvey Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books in Proletariat literature.

[Beverly Congdon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Much quicker read than I had expected.

So far I have found this book to be really interesting, but probably only because how utterly Marxist it is. A Red Soldier returns home from the war victorious, eager to return to his wife, 'comrades," and factory, only to find out that the Revolution is in shambles, and that the country is in famine despite food rations. When he left three years earlier, Revolution was in the air. Now his wife's heart has hardened, his "comrades" no longer recognize him, and the factory is deserted, stripped bare by the starving citizens. Nearly everyone has abandoned the Revolution, and icons of the revolution collect dust, neglected. Only a few have remained loyal to the Revolutionary ideals. These few serve as examples of the ideal socialist citizen, but there are too few of them and a socialist state requires the masses to operate the machine of the socialist cause. They are perhaps the only citizens who haven't gone mad from starvation. But as they desperately try to fuel their beloved socialist state, society plunges further into chaos, corruption and despair.

I would say it is a typical pro-Revolutionary Novel, and reminded me somewhat of The Gods Will Have Blood (novel on the French Revolution). Everyone believes in the Revolution in word but not in deed so it seems, and the few in power fall short of or outright oppose the revolutionary ideals. It's one of those time period piece novels you're assigned to read in a History of Soviet Russia course (the reason why I am reading it).

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did you know that the communists invented an entirely new genre for literature? When people talk about ‘Socialist Realism’ they most often think of the paintings of Diego Rivera like “Man at the Crossroads”, the heroic laborer seizing fearlessly the levers of industrial machines – the noble farmer toiling the fields. Tractors of the world unite!!! Scenes of Stalin receiving flowers from a group of ruddy little children from the Ural mountains. Pristine soviet villages sharing milk and honey.

But the soviets also used the written word – socialist realism in novels. Adopted officially in 1934 by the party and ratified by Stalin, this new genre “…demanded that all art must depict some aspect of man’s struggle toward socialist progress for a better life. It stressed the need for the creative artist to serve the proletariat by being realistic, optimistic and heroic.”

“Cement” by Fyodor Vasilievich Gladkov was one of the first and perhaps the blueprint for the genre. The story depicts the struggle of a village post-revolution to restart the cement factory in their midst, which has gone silent after the original managers were killed. In true socialist realism style, it ends on a high note; with a hero and a victory. But nevertheless I was surprised by the story, because it was not a story of nobility and loss and dignity against the odds. It was instead a tale of intrigue, petty infighting of the new communist overlords, exclusion, suffering and sadness. This book was tremendously sad. I suppose the point was to instill the need for sacrifice, to remind people that it would not be easy. To find that delicate balance between an ideology which can never be made to function as a model of government and the hopes that with only a little more work something will go right – though it never does.

One thing did surprise me, “Cement” was extremely well written. I who have read much Russian prose (as I’m sure you have) have accepted the fact that reading Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Chernyshevsky is a slog. A dreadful march through pages and pages of dialogue that seem to go nowhere, long-winded descriptions of incidents and places that are tangential to the stories. But not Cement, which was in fact a relatively easy read and in some places exhibited real rhetorical flourish.

“Without understanding why, Gleb felt wings unfolding in his soul. All this, the mountains, the sea, the factory, the town and the boundless distances beyond the horizon – the whole of Russia, we ourselves. All this immensity – the mountains, the factory, the distances – all were singing in their depths the song of our mighty labour. Do not our hands tremble at the thought of our back-breaking task, a task for giants? Will not our hearts burst with the tide of our blood? This is Workers’ Russia; this is us; the new world of which mankind has dreamed throughout the centuries. This is the beginning: the first indrawn breath before the first blow. It is. It will be. The thunder roars.”

It is so sad to see such talent put to the service of such a tremendous evil as was communism. I wonder what an amazing world Gladkov could have helped build, if he’d only been free.

[Mary Soderstrom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was required reading when I was working on my book Concrete: From Ancient Origins to a Problematic Future. I mean, who would have thought that someone would have written a big about such a boring, pedestrian material? As it turns out, this early example of Soviet realist fiction is an elegy to something that at the time was a symbol of the great changes planned for the new empire. The cement plant had been closed during the Russian Civil War, and now it's up to the good Soviets to put it back into service in order to build a new and improved society. At one point the hero Gelb Chamalov muses: "The significance of cement is that, like socialism, it creates a bond between the mass of loose particles....We produce cement. Cement is a firm bond. Cement is us, comrades--the working class."

In the end Chamalov and his comrades prevail. Here's how Gladkov describes the re-opening:

"The myriad crowd yelled and thundered... They were dancing and leaping there beneath the high platform, on the rocks and mountain slopes, where the banners flashed liked wings of fire, and the bands rang like thousands of grand bells.”

The book is worth reading because it says a lot about the hopes that Soviets had after the Russian Revolution, hopes that were dashed in subsequent years. The translation isn't terrific, but I've read worse. And, it should be noted, the book still resonates with people from the Soviet bloc. In 2009 the Ukrainian-British writer Marina Lewycka named her third novel We Are All Made Of Glue Here's the description from Goodreads: "Georgie Sinclair's life is coming unstuck. Her husband's left her. Her son's obsessed with the End of the World. And now her elderly neighbour Mrs Shapiro has decided they are related...As Georgie tries her best to put Mrs Shapiro's life back together, somehow she must stop her own from falling apart."

Nowhere in reviews of Lewycka's novel did I read a reference to Gladkov or Cement, but I think that there's an obvious parallel that Lewycka, who is wickedly funny, is just waiting for us to laugh at the inside joke.

[John Mihelic · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first came across Cement because I was looking to read something that was representative of socialist realism. And this book was held up as perhaps the best exemplar of that genre.

It is the story of a man who comes back to his hometown after the Russian Revolution fighting in the Army and he finds that everything has changed. The social structure has changed. His wife has changed. And he and the rest of the village must come together and get a cement factory back up and running. They must fight not just local reactionaries but also the bureaucracy of the Soviet system.

As story in the translation, it's not that bad, but it is more of interest as a historical text than it is just a fun book you're going to sit and read. The other thing of note is that it makes me think of the contemporaries of this text. It was written in the twenties and at the same time Mikhail Bulgakov was writing Master and Margarita and Heart of a Dog -- much more interesting modernism influenced text than this is. So at least that time artistically you were able to have a very separate threads representative in Soviet literature. Overall, I would say it is worth a read but again as the representative text of the genre.

[tõnn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Üks paremaid proosateoseid, mida sotsialistliku realismi kaanonist lugenud olen. Gladkovi "Tsemendis" väljendub 20ndate alguse vankumatu usk ja eneseohverduslikkus parema tuleviku nimel. Tingimata kirjeldab Gladkov aega sinisilmselt, aga millised ideelised kommunistid seda 20ndate alguses polnud?
Pärast verist maailmasõda, revolutsiooni ning veelgi verisemat kodusõda, näljahädasid ja liitlaste blokaadi oli uue riigi ülesehitamiseks ning majanduse taastamiseks vaja palju rohkem kui ainult sinisilmset usku ning neid keerulisi aegu Gladkov kirjeldabki.
Lisaks majanduslikule küljele käsitleb Gladkov ka ühiskonna taassündi, seda eriti peategelase naise tegelaskuju läbi, kes ei oota meest lihtsalt sõjast koju, vaid astub ise parteisse, võitleb oma õiguste eest ning defineerib ümber armastuse, perekonna- ning lähisuhted uue, häguse, sotsialistlike põhimõtete järgi, milles kõik sood on võrdsed.

Samuti muudab teose loo sügavamaks kibemagus lõpp, milles peategelane mitte ainult ei ohverda endale olulist peret ja isiklikku elu riigi hüvanguks (nagu propagandateosele kohane), vaid ka peab tunnistama, et tal ei ole võimalik kogu parteiaparaati korda teha ning tuleb teiste võimuharudega (keda esindavad ebameeldivad tegelased) koostööd teha.

[Merve K · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kitap okuma kulübümüzün Kasım ayı kitabıydı aslında ben önceden okudum.
Sosyalist romanlardan ne kadar çok kaçmaya çalışırsam o kadar çok içinde buluyorum kendimi. 😆
Yine de bazı açılardan çok gerçekçi olduğunu söyleyebilirim.
Gleb, yıllar sonra karısına, çocuğuna ve köyüne geri dönünce her şeyi çok değişmiş bulur. Özellikle de karısı Daşa'yı. Çocuğuna bile bakmayan, her şeyi bir görev bilinciyle bir komünisttir artık Daşa ve köyündeki diğer kişiler. Eski düzene isyan edip sosyalizm getirmiştir halk ama aç gözlü insanlar bu düzende de vardır ve aslında Gleb, eski düzene ne kadar da benzediğini fark eder çoğu şeyin.
İnsanlardaki yozlaşmayı anlatması açısından ve sosyalizmin çiçek kelebek tadında bir yönetim biçimi olmadığını, olsa bile uygulamada öyle olmadığını anlatması açısından sevdim kitabı. Ancak çeviri çok iyi olmasına rağmen yazarın yer yer dağınık anlatması yüzünden en sevdiğim kitaplardan biri de olmadı.

[Muhammed Çağrı Gülenç · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kitaba adını veren Çimento kelimesinin karşılığı, işçi-köylü sınıfı (ve bunların altı grubu olan diğer emekçi sınıf grupları). Kitap, Bolşevik İhtilali sonrası, Rus İç Savaşı'nın yaşandığı dönemde yaşanan toplum karmaşasını bir bölge ve kurgusal karakterler üzerinden anlatıyor. İhtilal sonrası oluşan toplum yapısındaki fırsatçılar, çıkar grupları ve yaşanan toplumsal çatışma başarılı bir şekilde yansıtılmış. Yazarın sosyalist-komünist olması sebebiyle, kitabın anlatım dilinde ister istemez bir sosyalizm-komünizm propagandası mevcut ancak olayların akış dinamiği içinde bu göze batmıyor. Akıcı bir şekilde devam eden ve sonlanan hikaye kurgusu söz konusu. Zaten yazarın belirttiğine göre, kendisinin yaşadığı kişisel anılar büyük ölçüde şekillendirmiş hikayesini.
Kısacası ben okunmasını tavsiye ederim sevgili okur arkadaşlar.

[marisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

For the purpose of historical study this is a great work to take the time and read. As fiction, i don't love it as much as some other russian pieces.

[Ted Prokash]

"The first important Russian novel to depict the immense efforts of post-Revolutionary reconstruction" And it's just as painful as it sounds. Only picked it up because it was the only interesting book in the bookstore that day. After the first couple pages I thought I wouldn't be able to go on. But, I had nothing else to read at the time and I have this sick perversion for finishing books I start. An exhaustive examination is unnecessary, as it seems it's already been done by academics. Came across as extremely overwrought, which is probably natural given what must have been an overwhelming desire on the part of the author to express the nobleness of the communist cause, and salt of the earth strength of the workers, etc. etc. A book that seems a victim of the heavy political climate at the time (published in 1925). Which is too bad, because at some points the writing actually gets good–but then Gladkov quickly slips back into a need to hit the reader over the head with the social/political metaphors and ideals his characters represent. And that's the frustrating thing here: there were hints of good writing that were ultimately ruined by the author's too obvious impetus.

Moral of the story: if you want to write a failure of a novel, making it a political allegory is an almost surefire way to do it.

(note: I didn't give Cement "zero stars"; I just don't give books stars on here. Cuz it's stupid.)

[Tyler Amick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extraordinarily well written. Having been written in Russian and then translated, there are some weird grammatical spots, but outside of those, this book is breathtaking. Complex, flawed characters struggle with their lot, their surroundings, their selves. Gladkov’s writing makes readers question notions of love, loyalty, obedience, and justice, all the while giving an intriguing portrait of the early NEP period of the USSR

[Jessica · Rating 2 out of 5]

Definitely an interesting read for somebody interested in Russian literature, particularly that of the 20th century. It does have some merit, but the Soviet Realism genre that it is beginning is a mode of propaganda, so you have to consider that when reading. It's difficult to tease out the author's opinions, and difficult at times to see this as a novel promoting communism.

[The Narrator · Rating 4 out of 5]

reading this now; so far so good

[Alina Stefanescu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reviewed here.

[kghgte · Rating 1 out of 5]

Possibly the most boring book I have ever read. It's good for understanding socialist realism but I would not recommend if you want an enjoyable reading experience.

[Lee Andy · Rating 5 out of 5]

他们直奔地狱，然后到达天堂——革拉特珂夫《士敏土》读后
《士敏士》书中自有沟壑，革命者看到为了实现理想大无畏的勇气；革命的反对者看到了革命的荒唐、残忍与非人性。故事充满了矛盾与冲突。深受中国革命文学叙事影响的读者读后不免嗟叹：《士敏土》是人的文学，比较而言“三红一创”不过是价值不高的低劣的宣传品。
一
主人公格列勃打完内战回到家乡看到破败水泥厂，决定恢复生产。他的妻子达莎在内战中已经成为了一位独立的女战士，一心领导妇女建设苏维埃。与丈夫关系不是夫妻，而是要共同理想同志。惟一的女儿纽尔卡被托管给糟糕的国家托儿所，最后被活活饿死。达莎作为妻子不合格，作为母亲更不合格。与女儿纽尔卡最后的会面让人感动，小女儿喃喃自语：要吃葡萄……要吃葡萄。达莎狠心的把抛弃掉！在抄家一场： “落后阶级“契尔斯基的律师一家的所有价值东西都被抄走，包括律师小女儿宁娜最后一件衬衫，却给小宁娜留下她的洋娃娃。这个故事体现了达莎母性。但是达莎把自己的女儿活祭给了最伟大事业——为了解放全人类而斗争。
达莎找到了一个……大胖洋娃娃，笑了笑，走到了小姑娘跟前。
“啊哈，多么漂亮的洋娃娃！……瞧它跑到你跟前来了，小娃娃，它想念你了……你们俩多么可爱呀！
…………
女人恶狠狠地喊道：
“宁娜……不许！……你瞧，他们不要脸，连你最后一件衬衫都给抢走了……把这个没有用的东西丢给他们！……”
故事写的非常纠结。契尔斯基一家人非常善良、非常人道。小说中没干过一件坏事。他们被抄家，拉到工厂强制劳动（这个劳动的死亡率甚至超过40%）。仍然保持一个人的体面。
契尔斯基穿着衬衫，挂着吊裤带，光着头……茫然无主望着那些房子的，好像头一回看见它们。他的妻子，头发蓬乱，衣服不整的，坐在包袱上，瞅着空中一点。小姑娘在父亲和母亲当中跳舞，合着脚步的节拍叫喊，两手紧搂着那个大洋娃娃。
可以说这是在揭露苏维埃的集中营的冷酷了！但是，从另一个角度来看，达莎，革命者的女儿。居然因为饥饿而死去。工人们的孩子难道不是孩子么？工人们在资本自由的环境难道不努力么？又是在工厂养猪，又是做打火机到处卖。工人们的一家财产还不如从契尔斯基家抄来的那一台钢琴。
强制劳动非常残酷，作者没有写。但是作者之后写了另一个故事。工人们因为实在受不了工厂无休止义务劳动，罢工搞群体事件，要杀了那些狗娘养的官僚。作者说：这个国家所有阶级都在受到煎熬。他不是反对共产乌托邦。他是说要实现理想要负重致远。这些代价是必须的。
作者很高明，在抄家故事里。“落后阶级“没有原罪，先进阶级反而有原罪的。资产阶级对无产阶级有阶级仇恨；无产阶级对资产阶级毫无仇恨，而是无尽的同情，但绝对不宽容，就要掠夺你所有的东西！作者从没有丑化”落后阶级“的品格，但是时刻想把他们变成劳动者，而且绝对承认这种转变是残忍而且极为不人道的。
之后，女革命家美霍娃进城的时候突然发现新经济政策下，契尔斯基律师，又穿上了不起的西服，喝上咖啡了。做了好几天噩梦。这种对生活感觉真是敏锐。我的一个姑爷，文革时被破四旧。不过是资产阶级的小游鱼。改革开始，给了点阳光立刻就灿烂。
二
格列勃的好友谢尔盖带着他的同志去抄他亲爹伊凡-阿尔森尼奇的家，并把老头子送到“古拉格“劳动改造。反革命老头子那一通对苏维埃嘲弄输出，简直帅爆了：伊凡老战士瞬间召唤的三位大贤者绽放出的光明如天柱一般神圣难侵，左手边伊曼努尔-康德以人道真理批判了敌人信仰的残酷，右手边巴鲁赫-史宾诺沙用几何理性嘲笑了敌人理想荒唐，前卫护法是被称为古罗马贤王中贤王马可·奥里略，伊凡老战士用他的功业嘲笑了敌人只拾起了罗马人的束棒，丝毫没有学者他的伟大。他的阶级敌人，来抄家谢尔盖-伊阿林尼奇被这一通输出惊吓毫无还手之力，忘记召唤世界三大社会学家之一，伟大的无产阶级导师，被称为欧州之鬼的最后的先知，大预言家Karl Marx的神格。谢尔盖同志怯懦了，面前这个反动、顽固、保守的老头子不再是他革命对象，而重新变回他不可侵犯父亲。失去的锁链回来了，得到世界摇摇欲坠。
当他的父亲自愿劳动改造，他迟疑了，嗫嚅道：
“你不能去那种地方，爸爸。就住在我宿舍里吧——咱们俩住在一起吧。不用去了，爸爸。你能走到哪儿去呢？你会毁了自己的……明白吗？……“
老头儿吃惊地扬起眉毛，笑得象一个小孩儿。
“哦，不，谢廖沙！……我非常明白我的自由有多么宝贵。我是一个人，而一个人是找不到一个安身之处的，因为任何一个窝都不能纳人的头脑。每件事都可以作为最好的教师：瞧，自由对奴隶是多么沉重的负担，翅膀对母鸡是多么痛苦的灾难！……”
不久之后，谢尔盖逮捕他的哥哥，白卫土匪德米特利-伊阿林尼奇，后者被枪杀。
不久之后，谢尔盖因为家庭出身，失去了党证，成为了被整党的对象。
三
伊凡-阿尔森尼奇进苏维埃劳动营好像圣徒，白卫土匪米特利-伊阿林尼奇被他弟弟谢尔盖写的好像共产党英勇就义。
“是呀，是呀……我非常高兴！……谢廖沙，可惜你不参加这个所谓‘枪毙’的滑稽玩意儿。我真想你参加，真想你参加，谢廖沙……咱们会想起童年时代……咱们的童年时代你记得挺清楚吧？……我希望到时候由你亲自用枪瞄准我……要不，你现在就枪毙了我吧？……你们的拷问室，比我小时候害怕的那些黑夜里的坟地还要可怕，我不情愿让我的心灵在那儿变得空虚……谢廖沙，把我送到底吧：这大概是很美的……对吗？是动人的吧？是浪漫的吧？……“
革拉特珂夫其实主题是党性高于人性的。只从文学审美的角度来看。这里蕴含悉达多的悲剧。当悉达多王子成为佛陀，他抛弃父亲、妻子、儿子与国家。革拉特珂夫曰：一个牺牲所有，成为一个新人，才能为共产主义奋斗终身。出家就要抛弃一切。《钢铁是怎样炼成》，保尔为什么不能爱冬妮娅？《第四十一》为什么要杀掉女狙击手杀掉她的“蓝眼睛“。革命者有大爱无小爱。
四
相对于反动派毫无缺点，革拉特珂夫给正面人物和党员们却是苛待！
主角，格列勃为了工厂建成了，家全毁了。老婆成为了同志，女儿死了。结尾强奸他老婆的上级领导巴津给他上党课，描绘共产主义美好的明天。格列勃成为了红旗一部分。这个故事写成《1984》的结尾。说这是反革命文学我绝对信！
格列勃的妻子达莎，被强奸后，没有感觉。对格列勃仍然有同志般的友谊，继续为共产主义事业而工作。
女战士美霍娃，犯了左倾错误，在整党中被开除党籍，在最脆弱的时候被巴津委员诱奸。从此就害怕与男人。结尾已经恢复名誉，重新参加工作。
知识分子上校谢尔盖，抄了父亲家，把老爹送去劳改营；亲手抓住白匪哥哥。在整党中被称为是家庭出身有问题，是不可靠分子。结尾正在为恢复党籍努力。
茹克·茨赫拉捷，左派革命家，生活作风正派，为工人谋福利但也是抄家派。因为不支持新经济政策（类似改革开放），整党时被开除党籍，愤然自杀，脑浆流一地。
巴津，本小说中最高官职人物。“杯水主义”者（性爱如杯水一样），是一个流氓。他与达莎到地方工作，遇到白匪，他先跑了，把女同志丢给白匪头子，就是谢尔盖他哥哥。是一个懦弱可耻的人。强奸了达莎（内战时曾经向达莎求爱）、诱奸了美霍娃。但是作为官僚这个人很合格，格列勃的工厂之所以能建立他有领导之功。结尾他从州执委会主席升入边区主席（加盟共和国一把手）。是不是明升暗降不知道。

[Kriegslok · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Cement is a mighty building material. With cement we are going to have a great building up of the Republic. We are cement, Comrades: the working class. Let us keep that in mind."

Gleb has been away fighting in the revolutionary civil war for a few years. When he returns to his village and home he finds things have changed. His wife Dasha rejects him, the factory is in ruin and criminality and apathy is rife. Dasha is now an activist and leader of the women's section of the Communist Party and has no time for Gleb. Apparatchiks spend their days locked in meetings, dragging their feet and creating bureaucratic hurdles.  Wondering what he has been away fighting for, Gleb struggles to adjust to the new revolutionary, and not so revolutionary conditions. If there is one thing he is determined to do it is to get the factory up and running again and rally the workers into a self respecting mass. 

This is not perhaps the cheery social-realist epic that one might expect from a distance. There are no happy collective tractor drivers or saintly proletarians. Instead Gladkov presents us with badly damaged and rudderless people. Gleb has a vision, but he too is only human and subject to the vices and shortcomings as everyone else. The book is full of domestic abuse, workplace abuse, violence, one-upmanship, sexual abuse, child suffering and seriously human intrigues and petty spitefulness. This gives Cement a naturalness and humanity which increases its credibility as an epic based upon a largely uneducated people trying to find their way on a blank sheet with, for the most part, only a rudimentary grasp of what the revolution means. In the end work becomes a motivating and bonding activity with a clear purpose towards improving life generally. In this new society women are increasingly powerful actors, no longer prepared as a mass to be chattel and reject their traditional roles in the home and bed. The struggle of women in the new society is at the forefront and the men are no longer comfortable patriarchs (although women are still subject to male violence). 

"Yes, all the men are like that - a dirty lot! The women have to be here and there, with a pot and a bag, ready for a blow, or ready for bed. or ready to feed him; they must be quiet and bear children every year. The men want to be bosses and play the grand! They're all the same - the wretches."

'Cement' is a true epic of a society undergoing revolutionary turmoil and rapid societal change. This liminal period is captured perfectly by Gladkov who provides a warts, misery and all account of the process.  An intelligent and highly daring epic.

"The window panes, the tiles, shone with cleanliness; the Diesel motors shimmered in black and brass. In the air was a tender singing hum from the pistons and wheels..... This severe and youthful music of metal, amid the warm smell of oil and petrol, strengthened and soothed Gleb's being."

[Mohammed omran · Rating 4 out of 5]

تدور أحداثاً، خلال الفترة اللاحقة مباشرة للحرب الأهلية الروسية التي تلت نجاح ثورة 1917 مباشرة. والشخصية المحورية في الرواية هي شخصية العامل الشيوعي الذي كان قد ترك المصنع الذي يعمل فيه، مثل غيره من العمال، ليلتحق جندياً في الحرب. وها هو الآن يعود إلى بلدته وإلى مصنعه، فيفاجأ بأن يد الخراب طاولت المصنع الذي كان مفخرة المنطقة بإنتاجه الإسمنت والمواد الكهربائية. ويدرك غليب بسرعة أ�� تخريب المصنع والحياة في البلدة كلها لم يكن صدفة، بل من عمل الجيران والأعداء الذين فككوا ودمروا كل شيء ليعتاشوا من بيع المعدات والقطع في السوق السوداء... وهم دمروا وباعوا في طريقهم بيوت المقاتلين وقطع الغيار وكل ما وقعت عليه أيديهم. من هنا، في إزاء هذا الوضع، رأى غليب أن ليس أمامه من مهمة يقوم بها الآن سوى إعادة المصنع الضخم إلى حاله الأولى لكي يستأنف إنتاج الإسمنت والكهرباء. وهو يدرك منذ البداية أن هذا العمل البطولي، لا يمكنه أن يكون إنجازاً فردياً - حتى وإن كان مؤمناً بالبطل الإيجابي و «بالإرادة الشيوعية» التي تصنع المعجزات، كما تقول «بروباغندا» الحزب - من هنا، يجد أن أولى مهماته يجب أن تكون العمل على تجييش رفاقه العمال وضخّ المعنويات في صدور السكان، شيوعيين كانوا، أو كانوا في طريقهم لأن يصبحوا، على يديه، شيوعيين. والحال أن غليب يتمكن في الشروع في مشروعه هذا، على رغم كل العقبات التي سيصادفها في طريق مسعاه، والتي يشكل وصفها والحديث عن مقاومتها، جزءاً أساسياً من فصول الرواية، وفي مقدمها المجاعة المستشرية والهجمات التي يقوم بها «البيض» من أعداء الثورة، بين الحين والآخر، ناهيك بهبوط المعنويات العام لدى الرفاق من الذين - أمام ضخامة العمل - تستبد بهم سوداوية مهلكة... بيد أن هذا كله ليس شيئاً أمام عقبات من نوع آخر، هي هنا بيت القصيد بالنسبة إلى الجانب النقدي «الذاتي» في رواية «الإسمنت»: وهذه العقبات تتمثل هنا في البيروقراطية السلطوية والحزبية المستشرية والتي، إذ كان مطلوباً منها أن تعين المشروع وتساعده، ها هي تعرقله بتطفلها وعقليتها البائدة وسيطرتها على كل مركز إداري، من طريق ولائها للحزب لا من طريق كفاءتها، ما يمكنها من شلّ كل النيات الطيبة.

> في هذه الرواية التي ستكون خاتمتها حسنة على أي حال، وستشهد انتصار غليب في مشروعه، عرف الكاتب كيف يمجّد من اعتبرهم البلاشفة الطيبين العاملين لخير الوطن، موجهاً سهام نقده إلى «بلاشفة» آخرين يختبئون خلف الهرمية الحزبية لتحقيق مآربهم الخاصة. والكاتب، بين هؤلاء وأولئك رسم في حقيقة الأمر، صورة لا ممالأة فيها للوضعية التي كانت عليها الأحوال في الاتحاد السوفياتي خلال عاميه الأولين أي... قبل وصول ستالين إلى السلطة. وفي هذا السياق عرف فيدور غلادكوف (1883 - 1958) في رأي الباحثين كيف يصور بطله إنساناً مكافحاً... لكنه قلق ويطرح أسئلة كثيرة (بمعنى انه لم يتسم بثنائية الأبيض/ الأسود، الخير/ الشر التي طغت دائماً على هذا النوع من الأبطال في الأدب الاشتراكي الواقعي)... خصوصاً أن غليب، إذ انتصر اجتماعياً ونضالياً في نهاية الأمر، دفع الثمن فشلاً في حياته الشخصية. والحال أن هذه السمات، سيعود غلادكوف صاغراً وينفيها عن الأبطال الإيجابيين الذين ستمتلئ بهم روايات لاحقة له من النمط نفسه، منها «الطاقة» و «حكايات طفولتي» و «الأحرار» و «الأزمنة الشريرة»...

[Bernard Norcott-mahany · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gladkov is the first novel of what would become Socialist Realism. It aimed to show life as it really was in the Soviet Union, generally with an uplifting ending. The book involves Gleb Chumalov, a Red soldier returning to his village that he had left some few years before to fight in the Revolution. On his return, all his mates are happy to see him, but his wife Dasha, who had to go it alone in his absence is quite different, committed to the cause, but not to her husband so much. Their commitment to the cause indirectly contributes to the death of their daughter, who dies of malnutrition (and lack of familial love) while at a state institution where kids of busy party members are raised. In addition, the local party leader is trying to get Dasha to join him in a sexual affair. There are instances of party purges and infighting among the party members, as well as a fair amount of personal unhappiness. And yet, at the end, when called to speak at a celebration of the 4th anniversary of the Revolution, Gleb delivers a rousing endorsement of the Revolution and its aims. I found the book most intriguing because while it could be quite idealistic in its presentation of the aims of the Revolution (made me start humming the "International"), it also presented the personal cost of the Revolution and the bickering that could go on in various party councils, things which put the lie to all those noble aims.

[joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's astonishing that Cement emerged as it did, solidifying so many threads that would come to ossify into the Soviet novel—the prosody of Russian naturalism (however florid it appears here), Bolshevik cultural ideology, the prototypical heroes journey, plot derived from real-world events—even as it laid out the practical challenges facing postwar Soviet society: material shortage, turgid bureaucracy, labour disorganization, inoperative technology, redefined gender roles, counter-revolutionary sabotage, etc. The parable Gladkov presents here is crystal clear (and is directly aligned with Pravda's position at the time): the survival of communism must shift from the military to the economic front. Thus Gleb, the civil‑war hero, returns home from battle and heroically redirects his energy into rebuilding the nation’s productive capacity. No matter how crude, formulaic, over-elaborated (and therefore un-literary by modern Western standards), Gladkov was unequivocal that literature’s post‑revolution role was to document and drive the material rebuilding of a new socialist society.

[Greta · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was supposed to have read this 30 years ago for a history class at university but never did. The little bit that I managed to get through I thought was *yawn* boring.

This time around, however, I found it rather interesting. If you read it not as a work of historical fiction, but as a work of fiction written in the past about mostly current events, it takes on a different character. That we get to read it in English also gives it a different character, I'm sure, than one would find in its original language.

At the end of this story, all I can say is that you can't really judge a book by its cover, or the translation, or necessarily from where you stand on the planet in your own headspace and time. This book and the story it tells takes you somewhere else entirely.

[Scotland · Rating 3 out of 5]

Known as the quintessential socialist realism novel, Cement isn't very real, but it is very socialist. It's interesting as a look into the stories that socialists were telling themselves and each other at this point early on in the Soviet Union, as they were navigating the transition between war and peace, the New Economic Policies, and the early purges. There are some sequences I really liked, but more that I didn't. The storyline between Gleb and Dasha is obviously written by a man who doesn't understand women, especially trying to fit them into the socialist theory of the time. The ending is abrupt and cacophonous, leaving no closure. Wouldn't really recommend this unless you're as into Russian history and lit as I am.