Letter to Comrade Stalin

Letter to Comrade Stalin - article by Zakhar Prilepin . Published by the author on July 30, 2012 on the site “ Free Press ” ^[1] , where Prilepin was the editor-in-chief at that time.

The article caused a sharp resonance in the Russian intellectual environment, splitting it into two camps ^[2] ^[3] . The author was accused of (neo) Stalinism , xenophobia and anti-Semitism . Prilepin made attempts to explain himself in the article “Shy of his fathers,” published 10 days after the release of the “Letter ...” ^[4] .

Ivan Grekov from the newspaper Trud believes that in Prilepin's articles “A Letter to Comrade Stalin” and “Shy of His Fathers” “critical questions of national life were posed in an acute form” ^[5] .

The text of the article provoked a lively reaction among intellectuals, especially among the writers. According to the German Wave , “having entered the literary establishment with the writing of the anti-liberal Sanka, Zakhar Prilepin recently deafeningly broke up with him by publishing the scandalous“ Letter to Comrade Stalin ” ^[6] .

Literary form "Letters ..."

The letter is written on behalf of the liberal intelligentsia, hidden under the impersonal pronoun "we". This “we” begins and ends the article: “We settled in your socialism.
We divided the country created by you. We have earned millions in factories built by your slaves and your scientists. We bankrupted the enterprises you built, and stole the money you received for the cordon where you built your palaces ... We are trying very hard and are not able to squander and waste your inheritance, your name, replace the bright memory of your great achievements with a black memory of yours, yes real, and, yes, monstrous crimes.
We owe everything to you. Damn you. ” ^[1]

Viktor Shenderovich believes that the pronoun “we” is a euphemism that replaces not the “Russian liberal public”, but the word “Jews”, and since the article is against “we”, it is anti-Semitic ^[7] .

The pronoun "we" in the text is next to "you" - this is how Stalin is designated:

We do not want to be thankful for your life and a life of your kind, a mustachioed bitch.

But secretly we know: if there weren’t you, there wouldn’t be us.

At the same time, “we” in the depersonalized designation of the liberal merges with the concept of “modern elite”: “We say that you yourself wanted to start a war, although you have not found a single document proving this.
We say that you killed all the red officers. ... The fact that with you we, contrary to you, had the army and science, but with us not to make out either one or the other, does not cancel our confidence. "

The article is based on the opposition of “you” to those who “hate” him. As follows from the quote, “you” can designate Stalin as a symbol of the USSR and the Soviet people during his life: “Both Western democracies and Western autocracies hated you, and they still hate these financial circles, because that they remember who they once had business with. They dealt with something in all respects opposite to us. You are a different starting point. You are the other pole. You are the bearer of a program that our small-town consciousness will never contain. ” Among the hating rulers of his time ("Those who do it are hated. There are no complaints against those who do nothing. What did the heads of France, or Norway, or, say, Poland, when that war started, recall?") and ours (“if you had lived another half a century, no one would have exchanged the great space odyssey for ay-pods and computer games”).

Mark Lipovetsky (professor at the University of Colorado (Boulder, USA), doctor of philological sciences), in the notes to the article “Political Motility of Zakhar Prilepin” (J. Znamya, No. 10, 2012), singled out the general style (rhetoric) as characteristic of the newspaper “ Tomorrow ” , believes that “in the“ Letter to Comrade Stalin “there is nothing that Prilepin would not have talked about before” ^[8] ^[9] .

The literary methods of evaluating not an article, but its author, are characterized by ^{[by whom?} ^] by citing with breaking out the whole context .

So, for example, in the report of the Moscow Bureau of Human Rights “Aggressive xenophobia in the Russian Federation in 2012: forms, manifestations, reaction of the authorities”:

“... Z. Prilepin published ... the article “Letter to Comrade Stalin”, in which he actually reproduced anti-Semitic accusations that the Jews allegedly benefited the most from the transition to a market economy. There was also an accusation of ingratitude towards Stalin, who "put in seven layers of Russian people to save the life of our seed." The Jews themselves allegedly "fought only in Russia, with Russia, on the ridge of Russian people" "
- ^[10]

Quotations from the article ending the paragraph with the statement:

“You saved the life of our family. If not for you, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers would be strangled in gas chambers neatly placed from Brest to Vladivostok, and our question would be finally resolved. You put seven layers of Russian people in order to save the life of our seed . ”

Another quote is taken out of the paragraph where Russia is compared with other states:

“When we say about ourselves that we also fought, we are aware that we fought only in Russia, with Russia, on the ridge of Russian people. In France, in Poland, in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Romania, and further everywhere, we didn’t succeed in fighting so well, they collected and burned us there. It happened only in Russia, where we found salvation under your nasty wing. ”

Article rating

In the article "The Results of the Literary Year" published in the journal " Contraband ", Oleg Komrakov puts Prilepin's article on a par with the political steps of other writers, seeing in general a movement similar to the spirit of perestroika :

Another important topic of the year related to literature was the participation of Russian writers in political activity: writers walk on boulevards, gatherings near the monument to the Kazakh poet Abay, media articles, blog posts, the Citizen Poet project brings down the satire hammer on the vices of modern Russian society , Zakhar Prilepin writes a letter to Comrade Stalin .... It feels like the old days are back, in the yard again the end of the 80s and the writers again became “rulers of thoughts”.
- ^[11]

Vladimir Bondarenko, in the article “The End of the Big Book” (December 10, 2012, the Free Press website), summing up the literary outcome of the year, singled out “A Letter to Comrade Stalin”: “I consider the second equally noisy and literally significant event of 2012 Zakhar Prilepin’s artistic essay pamphlet “A Letter to Comrade Stalin” ”, further comparing the attacks on the author with those of Lermontov and concluding:“ Stalin is more likely to be the background for both Zakhar and his opponents. The argument is not about him. Zakhar dug deep into the traditional confrontation in Russia of the people and the court elite. Deep in Zakhar, this Nizhny Novgorod outback does not uproot. But, if all Russia stirred up from this letter, it means that the writer's word is also significant. Nor will Russian literature disappear. ” ^[12] .

Alexey Kolobrodov expressed the same opinion about the revival of the role of the writer as the ruler of thoughts on the example of polemics with Prilepin's article in the newspaper Literary Russia :

the notorious letter is a phenomenon of literary life (and in this sense, a noisy polemic, and, more precisely, “raging boil of shit” now) - paradoxical as it may seem, the sign is encouraging - literature and writers once again determine the state of minds. Here Prilepin with his strong muscles is an important figure, but not the only one (sermons by Limonov, journalist Sadulayev, Olshansky, Viktor Toporov etc).
- ^[13]

“ Arguments and Facts ” in an interview with Edward Radzinsky asked the question “Zakhar Prilepin published a“ Letter to Comrade Stalin “. The letter correctly reflects our dilemma: we cannot understand, thank Stalin, or curse. Zakhar ends the letter like this: “We owe everything to you. Damn you". So who owes whom, are we to him or is he to us? ” ^[14] .

Allegations of Anti-Semitism

On the part of the liberal public, the author’s accusations of anti-Semitism (fascism, etc.) became a common response to the article. This caused a response from people, including those who did not support Prilepin.

One of the first (August 6, 2012, The Daily Journal ), Viktor Shenderovich responded: “And I note with sadness: Zakhar became an anti-Semite, about which, in fact, he informed the public by publishing this text.” ^[15]

Mikhail Shvydkoy , August 13, 2012, a blog on the Echo of Moscow website: “I read Prilepin's“ Letter to Comrade Stalin. ” Grieved by ignorance and meanness, impossible for a Russian writer.
So, not a Russian writer ” ^[16] .

Prilepin about the "Letter ..."

In his article “Shy of his fathers” dated August 9, Prilepin spoke about the reasons for writing “Letters ...”:

“My very letter was conceived after another bastard bacchanalia in the press, which happened on the last of May 9, and again repeated bacchanalia on June 22 of this year. Many have become accustomed to these bacchanalia, and many have come to terms with them.
In addition, in fact, millions of people living in Russia.
In order to somehow explain the tremendous sense of respect for Stalin among the people, my opponents argue that all those who were in the camps died and now the children of executioners and informers are missing Stalin.

In an interview with gas. Moscow Komsomolets Prilepin said about his choice as a writer and citizen:

“Before this letter to Stalin, everything in my life was successful, I am a happy person, everything worked out for me. And so I decided to complicate my life and thus cheer up. By the way, this letter is addressed, including, to Vladimir Putin "
- ^[17]

.

The anti-Putin (and not anti-Semitic) message of the article is emphasized by the author in an interview with APN (“ Political News Agency ”) (2012-08-27):

“The letter was addressed at the same time to Putin, and to all kinds of Timchens, and Yeltsin’s quasi-elites, and communist degenerates, and to the heroes of“ perestroika ”, and to the current advocates of liberalism, and to those who privatized the popular protest on Bolotnaya and Sakharov. And, yes, among other things, the letter contains one and a half paragraph, where there is a direct answer to some of the most active historians and publicists, professional and long-standing whistleblowers of Stalin, who, God sees, would not have been born if it weren’t for this whiskered monster with their detachments and their marshals.
However, it was immediately obvious to all normal people that these whistleblowers were among all the other addressees - first of all Russians, and then whatever - among which, by the way, the Ukrainian "historians" too, they were no less excited, just we hear them worse. Adlfred Koch, a Russian public figure of German origin, a former minister of the Yeltsin government, also clearly recognized himself in a letter. And he is not alone, of course. ”
- ^[18]

According to Prilepin, one of the vectors was his age - 37 years, fatal for Russian writers. Age of spiritual fracture:

Interview MK: “This summer I turned 37 years old. This is a symbolic age for a Russian writer. At this time, they either shoot with Dantes or fire a bullet in their forehead ” ^[17] .

Interview with Labor: “I am 37 years old, and it would be ridiculous to be in a pink delusion about a part of the Russian intelligentsia. I sincerely, conscientiously tried to find a common language with many, many people, but I was convinced that many of those who consider themselves liberals should work in the Ministry of Total Morality ” ^[5] .

Notes

↑ ¹ ² Zakhar Prilepin . Letter to Comrade Stalin (Neopr.) . The Free Press (July 30, 2012). Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.
↑ The scandal surrounding the letter of the writer Zakhar Prilepin to Comrade Stalin (Neopr.) . Komsomolskaya Pravda (August 13, 2012). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.
↑ Ivan Grekov. Labor: “Stalin, quite possibly, is now in hell ...” (unopened) . “ Labor ” (September 4, 2012). - “They immediately read Prilepin split into two irreconcilable camps. One calls to give the writer in the face (proposal of the famous lyric poetess), not to give him a hand and in every possible way to express Prilepin contempt. In another, Stalinists of all stripes nod their heads approvingly: comrades! Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.
↑ Zakhar Prilepin . Shy of their fathers (neopr.) . The Free Press (August 9, 2012). Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.
↑ ¹ ² Ivan Grekov. Labor: “Stalin, quite possibly, is now in hell ...” (unopened) . “ Labor ” (September 4, 2012). Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.
↑ Dmitry Vachedin. Zakhar Prilepin: “The revolution will be general” (neopr.) . Deutsche Welle (September 9, 2012). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.
↑ Victor Shenderovich . Debutant (neopr.) (August 6, 2012). - "... in the" Letter "a forgery, the honor of the invention of which belongs entirely to Zakhar Prilepin himself. This is the crafty "we" used by him as a key to the text. Who are these disgusting “we” on behalf of whom Prilepin wrote his “letter to Stalin”? The answer is in the text: those who divided the country created by the leader, bankrupted the enterprises he built, stole billions, stole money for the cordon, built thousands of palaces there, bought yachts ... Well, in general terms, it’s clear, but is it possible to be more specific? But to you more specifically: these are those ungrateful people with a “small-town consciousness”, “whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers would be strangled in gas chambers” if it were not for Stalin. Those whose seed Stalin saved by "putting in seven layers of Russian people" ... In a word ... Well, you understand. Understood, understood. Not stupid. Ah, Zakhar, but what does the “Russian liberal public” have to do with it, how did you name us in the forged signature under the letter? Why are these bashful euphemisms? Do not be shy, Zakhar, all your own, especially in the newspaper "Tomorrow". Say simply and loudly: the Jews! - and new masses of excited readers will be drawn to you for knowledge. The old ones, however, will step aside, but the print runs will not fall. ” Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.
↑ Mark Lipovetsky . Political motility of Zakhar Prilepin // "Banner" . - 2012. - No. 10 . Archived on February 5, 2013.
↑ Kirill Ankudinov. The beast from the abyss (neopr.) . Free Press (October 20, 2012). “And in the tenth issue of The Banner, Mark Lipovetsky scolds Zakhar Prilepin. I do not consider Prilepin a “holy idol,” which is not supposed to be criticized; I myself once criticized the Prilepin biography of Leonid Leonov. And the thundered "Letter to Comrade Stalin" caused an ambiguous reaction: I humanly understand Zakhar's impulse, but I do not accept many of the intentions of his text (this is a long conversation not for the present time). However, Mark Lipovetsky's opus is an amazing criticism. Lipovetsky does not oppose any particular work or statement by Prilepin, nor even against the holistic worldview of Prilepin. Lipovetsky is not satisfied with “political motility of Zakhar Prilepin” (his article is called “Political motility of Zakhar Prilepin”). What kind of "motor" is that? What is it eaten with? As I understand it, Mark Lipovetsky is abhorrent to Prilepin’s personality, and he is trying to blacken it. First, Lipovetsky catches Prilepin on contradictions. Then he is consistently incriminated with ethnocentrism (expressed in an insufficiently positive description of foreigners), disrespect for gays, intellectuals, liberals, women, patriarchal attitudes, subconscious fixation on violence, “boy ethics” (here he is an occasion to sew Prilepin’s “boy” with a crooked needle to “ kid »Putin). Final conclusion: “the political motility of Prilepin and his heroes in a strange way reveals the features of“ ur-fascism ”(“ ur-fascism “is a concept invented by Umberto Eco). Laughter, laughter, and yet the man was called "fascist" - in a country that defeated fascism. “The concepts of Umberto Eco” will be forgotten, and the label “fascist” will remain, stick. ” Date of appeal February 15, 2017.
↑ Aggressive xenophobia in the Russian Federation in 2012: forms, manifestations, reaction of the authorities (neopr.) . Moscow Bureau for Human Rights (2012). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.
↑ Oleg Komrakov. The results of the literary year (neopr.) . Smuggling (January 14, 2013). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.
↑ Vladimir Bondarenko . The end of the Big Book (unopened) . Free Press (December 10, 2012). Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.
↑ Alexey Kolobrodov . Reader muscle (neopr.) . Literary Russia , No. 38 (September 21, 2012). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.
↑ Vera Kopylova. Edward Radzinsky: "It is very stuffy in the country" (neopr.) . Arguments and Facts (October 22, 2012). Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.
↑ Victor Shenderovich . Debutant (neopr.) . The Daily Journal (August 6, 2012). Дата обращения 23 января 2013. Архивировано 16 апреля 2013 года.
↑ Михаил Швыдкой . О писателе Прилепине (неопр.) . Эхо Москвы (13 августа 2012). Дата обращения 23 января 2013. Архивировано 5 февраля 2013 года.
↑ ¹ ² Катерина Кузнецова. Адвокат Сталина (неопр.) . Московский комсомолец (6 сентября 2012). Дата обращения 23 января 2013. Архивировано 5 февраля 2013 года.
↑ Захар Прилепин. Захар Прилепин: «Нужна жёсткая перезагрузка. Я её получил» (неопр.) . «Агентство Политических Новостей» (27 августа 2012). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.

Links

Захар Прилепин . Письмо товарищу Сталину (неопр.) . « Свободная пресса » (30 июля 2012). Дата обращения 23 января 2013. Архивировано 5 февраля 2013 года.
Захар Прилепин . Стесняться своих отцов (неопр.) . « Свободная пресса » (9 августа 2012). Дата обращения 23 января 2013. Архивировано 5 февраля 2013 года.
Скандал вокруг письма писателя Захара Прилепина товарищу Сталину (неопр.) . Комсомольская правда (13 августа 2012). Дата обращения 15 февраля 2017.
Марк Липовецкий . Политическая моторика Захара Прилепина // «Знамя» . — 2012. — № 10 . Архивировано 5 февраля 2013 года.
Бардин Павел . Письмо товарища Сталина несравненному другу и почтальону Захару (кинорежиссёр Павел Бардин — писателю Захару Прилепину) (неопр.) . The New Times (7 августа 2012). Дата обращения 15 февраля 2017.
Алексей Колобродов . Читательская мышца (неопр.) . « Литературная Россия », № 38 (21 сентября 2012). Дата обращения 15 февраля 2017.
Евгения Иванова . Мир в братских могилах (неопр.) . « Литературная Россия », № 35-36 (7 сентября 2012). Дата обращения 15 февраля 2017.

[что-то-1] ¹ ² Zakhar Prilepin . Letter to Comrade Stalin (Neopr.) . The Free Press (July 30, 2012). Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.

[2] The scandal surrounding the letter of the writer Zakhar Prilepin to Comrade Stalin (Neopr.) . Komsomolskaya Pravda (August 13, 2012). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.

[3] Ivan Grekov. Labor: “Stalin, quite possibly, is now in hell ...” (unopened) . “ Labor ” (September 4, 2012). - “They immediately read Prilepin split into two irreconcilable camps. One calls to give the writer in the face (proposal of the famous lyric poetess), not to give him a hand and in every possible way to express Prilepin contempt. In another, Stalinists of all stripes nod their heads approvingly: comrades! Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.

[4] Zakhar Prilepin . Shy of their fathers (neopr.) . The Free Press (August 9, 2012). Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.

[ReferenceA-5] ¹ ² Ivan Grekov. Labor: “Stalin, quite possibly, is now in hell ...” (unopened) . “ Labor ” (September 4, 2012). Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.

[6] Dmitry Vachedin. Zakhar Prilepin: “The revolution will be general” (neopr.) . Deutsche Welle (September 9, 2012). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.

[7] Victor Shenderovich . Debutant (neopr.) (August 6, 2012). - "... in the" Letter "a forgery, the honor of the invention of which belongs entirely to Zakhar Prilepin himself. This is the crafty "we" used by him as a key to the text. Who are these disgusting “we” on behalf of whom Prilepin wrote his “letter to Stalin”? The answer is in the text: those who divided the country created by the leader, bankrupted the enterprises he built, stole billions, stole money for the cordon, built thousands of palaces there, bought yachts ... Well, in general terms, it’s clear, but is it possible to be more specific? But to you more specifically: these are those ungrateful people with a “small-town consciousness”, “whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers would be strangled in gas chambers” if it were not for Stalin. Those whose seed Stalin saved by "putting in seven layers of Russian people" ... In a word ... Well, you understand. Understood, understood. Not stupid. Ah, Zakhar, but what does the “Russian liberal public” have to do with it, how did you name us in the forged signature under the letter? Why are these bashful euphemisms? Do not be shy, Zakhar, all your own, especially in the newspaper "Tomorrow". Say simply and loudly: the Jews! - and new masses of excited readers will be drawn to you for knowledge. The old ones, however, will step aside, but the print runs will not fall. ” Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.

[8] Mark Lipovetsky . Political motility of Zakhar Prilepin // "Banner" . - 2012. - No. 10 . Archived on February 5, 2013.

[9] Kirill Ankudinov. The beast from the abyss (neopr.) . Free Press (October 20, 2012). “And in the tenth issue of The Banner, Mark Lipovetsky scolds Zakhar Prilepin. I do not consider Prilepin a “holy idol,” which is not supposed to be criticized; I myself once criticized the Prilepin biography of Leonid Leonov. And the thundered "Letter to Comrade Stalin" caused an ambiguous reaction: I humanly understand Zakhar's impulse, but I do not accept many of the intentions of his text (this is a long conversation not for the present time). However, Mark Lipovetsky's opus is an amazing criticism. Lipovetsky does not oppose any particular work or statement by Prilepin, nor even against the holistic worldview of Prilepin. Lipovetsky is not satisfied with “political motility of Zakhar Prilepin” (his article is called “Political motility of Zakhar Prilepin”). What kind of "motor" is that? What is it eaten with? As I understand it, Mark Lipovetsky is abhorrent to Prilepin’s personality, and he is trying to blacken it. First, Lipovetsky catches Prilepin on contradictions. Then he is consistently incriminated with ethnocentrism (expressed in an insufficiently positive description of foreigners), disrespect for gays, intellectuals, liberals, women, patriarchal attitudes, subconscious fixation on violence, “boy ethics” (here he is an occasion to sew Prilepin’s “boy” with a crooked needle to “ kid »Putin). Final conclusion: “the political motility of Prilepin and his heroes in a strange way reveals the features of“ ur-fascism ”(“ ur-fascism “is a concept invented by Umberto Eco). Laughter, laughter, and yet the man was called "fascist" - in a country that defeated fascism. “The concepts of Umberto Eco” will be forgotten, and the label “fascist” will remain, stick. ” Date of appeal February 15, 2017.

[10] Aggressive xenophobia in the Russian Federation in 2012: forms, manifestations, reaction of the authorities (neopr.) . Moscow Bureau for Human Rights (2012). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.

[11] Oleg Komrakov. The results of the literary year (neopr.) . Smuggling (January 14, 2013). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.

[12] Vladimir Bondarenko . The end of the Big Book (unopened) . Free Press (December 10, 2012). Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.

[13] Alexey Kolobrodov . Reader muscle (neopr.) . Literary Russia , No. 38 (September 21, 2012). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.

[14] Vera Kopylova. Edward Radzinsky: "It is very stuffy in the country" (neopr.) . Arguments and Facts (October 22, 2012). Date of treatment January 23, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.

[15] Victor Shenderovich . Debutant (neopr.) . The Daily Journal (August 6, 2012). Дата обращения 23 января 2013. Архивировано 16 апреля 2013 года.

[16] Михаил Швыдкой . О писателе Прилепине (неопр.) . Эхо Москвы (13 августа 2012). Дата обращения 23 января 2013. Архивировано 5 февраля 2013 года.

[spb-17] ¹ ² Катерина Кузнецова. Адвокат Сталина (неопр.) . Московский комсомолец (6 сентября 2012). Дата обращения 23 января 2013. Архивировано 5 февраля 2013 года.

[18] Захар Прилепин. Захар Прилепин: «Нужна жёсткая перезагрузка. Я её получил» (неопр.) . «Агентство Политических Новостей» (27 августа 2012). Date of appeal February 15, 2017.