Revolution on My Mind: Writing a Diary Under Stalin

by Jochen Hellbeck

Revolution on My Mind is a stunning revelation of the inner world of Stalin's Russia. We see into the minds and hearts of Soviet citizens who recorded their lives during an extraordinary period of revolutionary fervor and state terror. Writing a diary, like other creative expression, seems nearly impossible amid the fear and distrust of totalitarian rule; but as Jochen Hellbeck shows, diary-keeping was widespread, as individuals struggled to adjust to Stalin's regime. Rather than protect themselves against totalitarianism, many men and women bent their will to its demands, by striving to merge their individual identities with the collective and by battling vestiges of the old self within. We see how Stalin's subjects, from artists to intellectuals and from students to housewives, absorbed directives while endeavoring to fulfill the mandate of the Soviet revolution--re-creation of the self as a builder of the socialist society. Thanks to a newly discovered trove of diaries, we are brought face to face with individual life stories--gripping and unforgettably poignant. The diarists' efforts defy our liberal imaginations and our ideals of autonomy and private fulfillment. These Soviet citizens dreamed differently. They coveted a morally and aesthetically superior form of life, and were eager to inscribe themselves into the unfolding revolution. Revolution on My Mind is a brilliant exploration of the forging of the revolutionary self, a study without precedent that speaks to the evolution of the individual in mass movements of our own time.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Russian History, Russia, Soviet History, Soviet Union, Academic

448 pages, Hardcover

First published May 31, 2006

About the author

Jochen Hellbeck is Associate Professor of History at Rutgers University, specializing in the history of Eastern Europe.

Reviews

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jochen Hellbeck’s Revolution on My Mind challenges previous studies that have engaged the Soviet state’s ideology by reducing society to either an obsequious mass that submitted to the state’s every directive or a repressed population the resisted in every way it could. Raising the notion of “Soviet subjectivity”, he suggests that individuals identified voluntarily with the system and attempted to link it to their own existence and banish their “bourgeois” autonomy. The bulk of his analysis rests on the diaries of four individuals in various social positions who struggled to align themselves with socialist ideology, enjoying differing degrees of success, and who recorded their difficult and complex journey in great detail. Rather than lionizing these diaries as the “true feelings” of his subjects, however, the author unpacks a more nuanced vision of their purpose and argues that diary writing was not always an exercise to record repressed or masked thoughts, but more often served the purpose of bridging the public and private spheres.

In addition to acting as a tool to merge these realms, which was an imperative of socialist ideology, Hellbeck conceptualizes the diary as a way to record and work through individual transformations from an “old” self to a new, Soviet identity. In this respect it often functioned as a “rubbish heap” through which “un-communist” thoughts and behaviors could be engaged with and purged. He discards the notion that Soviet citizens were all liberal at their core and expressed this in private, arguing that this perception is a projection of scholar’s desire to prove the regime’s propaganda of societal cohesion false, as well as of the assumption that all Soviets must have been liberal men who strove for autonomy, rather than being part of the collective. Researchers have, therefore, assumed that the diary under the Soviet regime functioned the same as it did under capitalist systems and have not engaged in a proper study of its actual purpose under Stalin. One of the major directives under Stalin was to engender a political consciousness within every citizen and the diary was a tool for individuals “to write themselves into their social and political order”. In most cases it was not meant to be a private comfort, but a public record that could help demonstrate one’s commitment to the new order. The advent of purges in the 1930s strengthened this purpose, because they promulgated the message that regime enemies hid behind external displays of commitment to socialism and that true communists would be able to demonstrate their commitment on an internal level.

Heroes were celebrated in Soviet culture, but it was always emphasized that communism, rather than innate traits, were what brought out the best in them, since the only correct plane of existence was in the public sphere as a member of the collective and a participant in a great phase of history. In order to become a revered actor in this historical era, one had to “creat[e] a dialogue between the self and the age” and discover how to improve their inner character so as to live up to socialist ideals. Oppositional diaries were therefore scarce, because writing oneself out of revolution was equivalent to self-marginalization. Self-transformative work under Stalin took on the language of the Five-Year Plans, and added to this were the ideas of “psychology”, which is a negative force that stands in the way of ideology and is responsible for “incorrect” behavior, and “willpower”, which is what makes one a moral and historical agent. Individuals from lower classes wanted to create a “self” from nothing, but those from higher echelons of society had the more difficult task of repairing their “self” from the damage of bourgeois culture.

The bulk of the book is devoted to the study of four particularly insightful diaries. Coming from an intellectual and “bourgeois” background, Zinaida Denisevskaya condemned the Bolsheviks at first, but eventually engaged in a cultivation of her personality in the hopes of becoming part of the collective and eradicating her loneliness. Stepan Podlubny was a kulak who fled to the city and pretended to be from the working class, but his diary depicts a determination to become a genuine part of the new Soviet society. Leonid Potemkin’s diary, meanwhile, displays a struggle with the “self” on the way to developing into a vydvizhentsy, a member of the proletariat who has been promoted to administrative or managerial roles, and seeking to become a role model for his class. Finally, Alexander Afinogenov was a playwright who earned connections to Stalin, but then came into conflict with socialist realism because his plays began to portray psychological realism. His writings explore questions concerning his potential to become a true Bolshevik and his failure to develop his character.

Hellbeck concludes by claiming that many Soviets accepted the call to live within the collective flow of history and travel down a path towards self-transformation into socially valuable roles that ignored obsessions with the self and the private sphere. His work is valuable not only for the perspective that it offers, but for raising critical questions about the field of Soviet studies and restoring agency to those who internalized the socialist (and Stalinist) ideology. He also does an excellent job of extricating his personal voice from the narratives of the diarists and inserting himself only where necessary to fill in contextual gaps. His writing style is somewhat stilted, however, which can be off-putting, and his work probably would not be accessible, or at least interesting, to a non-academic audience. I also found it difficult to get a sense of just how representative his four diarists are and whether his examples can be extended into an argument about Soviet society’s acceptance of and engagement with regime ideology. While he is limited by the sources that he can acquire, and much of the value of his work is in the questions he raises and the perspective he provides, the issue of broad applicability remains ambiguous. Nonetheless, regardless of whether one agrees with its framework and conclusions, Revolution on My Mind is essential reading for anyone engaged in the study of the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating approach to what is often called Alltagsgeschichte or the history of everyday life. By using personal diaries, written during a period of totalitarian encroachment, Mr. Hellbeck is able to give a portrait of the inner lives of those who lived through it, be they victims or perpetrators of class-based violence (they were frequently both). Broken into four “case studies,” the reader comes to know the identities of its subjects quite intimately, and to see how the diaries themselves are part of the project of building identity for each one. The conclusion may surprise Western minds, for Hellbeck finds that no matter their status or position, each one internalized the regime’s ideology and strove to be the “best” Stalinist they could, even at the expense of their own personal interests and individuality. Each accepted that socialism was moving towards a society defined by a “new man” and held that model before him-or-herself as something to be achieved. For some, it was beyond reach, though others used their diaries to perform its achievement. Probably my only regret, reading this book, is that the case studies are the only diaries discussed in any detail, although his source notes as well as the introduction and conclusion indicate that he had access to many more. Probably additional case studies would have led to an overlong book, but it would be nice if a few more could be quickly summarized in an additional chapter. It would be great if other historians pick this up and examine his claims that diaries from other totalitarian societies at the same time, such as Germany and Italy, would have differed in terms of their subject’s self-perceptions and self-accusations.

[tomsyak]

Summary:
In this book, Hellbeck is challenging the "Western notions of totalitarian societies" that view individuals under totalitarian regimes as keeping two sets of books - one public and one private, with very little overlap. Through the use of diaries written by Soviet citizens in the 1930s, Hellbeck shows that they strove to "write themselves into their social and political order," attempting to bridge the gap between "public" and "private." These diaries were a tool of self-transformation, their authors recognized that they were living in historic times and saw themselves as "modern subjects" who recorded their path from spontaneity to consciousness. Hellbeck traces the genealogy of self-reflection back to pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, but the quest for consciousness was re-defined by the Bolsheviks as applicable to the entire Soviet population.

Hellbeck sees himself as a member of the post-totalitarian and post-revisionist school (I don't think it has a name yet), which on one hand does not view Soviet citizens as only the victims of Stalinism, but also does not ignore the power of ideology, viewing Soviet citizens are "ideological agents on par with the leaders of party and state."

Four diaries are analyzed in detail - that of a member of pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, a kulak's son in hiding, an upwardly-mobile proletarian, and a writer. I found the latter the most interesting, especially his view of the NKVD as a moral authority and of himself as a tool of Stalin's genius (and the belief that his possible death in the purges will serve a higher purpose). I also found it interesting that the kulak's son, who in the 1930s believed that his relatives who did not survive the famine in Ukraine did not deserve to live under the Soviet system, in the 1980s re-interpreted his diary as one of a victim of Stalinism.

Hellbeck addresses the question of diaries as a source, refuting the suggestion that intensely private documents written for several years on end could be produced only to deceive the regime. He concludes that "much of the ideological tension in the early Soviet system did not exist between the state on the one hand and its citizens... on the other, but in the way citizens engaged their own selves" - I wonder if the evidence from the (probably several hundred, but not many more) diaries is enough to be able to make a wide-sweeping conclusion like this.

In his review, Suny points out that Hellbeck describes a successful creation of new Soviet subject, although he does not address the question of how "typical" his chosen diarists were - power is not total, and its self-contradictions open a space for variation in subjectivities.

Comment/Critique:
Sometimes I felt that Hellbeck was writing not about Soviet citizens, but about Martians - in essence, he is treating them as a completely alien population with which he has discovered some surprising commonalities. I guess it's a consequence of the earlier predominance of the "totalitarian school," the representatives of which proposed that an individual under totalitarianism is of a different species than they would be in a democratic society.

Also, although the book was a fascinating read, I felt that its content could have been perfectly summarized in an article.

[Scott Nieradka · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the only book i had on a 12 hour airport ordeal on the way home from a crappy trip, i have fonder memories of this book than it probably deserves. But i enjoy this book, it has a dry realism that makes the people it discusses feel real, and its explanations for the private psychology of the time seem believable. Its one of the books i keep in my studio to read to fall asleep when i am there too late to make it home.

[Pilar Hanes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really quite pretty writing! It fluctuated between kind of boring to very wow and even emotional almost for me. But also non-fiction is so hard for me to read. I do think it could have been condensed a bit but I really found it interesting at times and overall educational.

Güd book.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a history of the early USSR told from looking at entries in private diaries that were kept by Soviet citizens from the time of the revolution. This is a new data source and one of the few efforts that I am aware of that attempt to write history this way. The book most likely emphasizes on a relatively small number of thoughtful and well done diaries, but that is OK - I suspect most of the diaries were not as memorable. Two takeaways that I got from the book were the variety of reasons and benefits that people saw from the revolution and the honesty that some showed in chronicling how they dealt with such a strange situation. It brings up memories of the Civil War diaries that were popularized by the Ken Burns PBS series (Mary Chestnut, etc.). Another point is how the writing changes and closes up when the terror under Stalin begins and people become very private.

[Molly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty depressing overall, though I guess I should have expected that from a book on Stalin-era Russia. Had to read this for a history methods course, and once I got into the individual stories, I really enjoyed it. Hellbeck uses diaries in a way I haven't really seen before. I had some problems with it, but it was certainly an interesting read.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hellbeck did a wonderful job explaining the genre of diary writing and placing the diaries in their historical contents. I would have preferred having more of the diaries quoted than this book has, but overall it was a worthwhile read.