One of the most fascinating research trends in the post-Soviet historiography is the analysis of surviving diaries written by ordinary people during Stalin’s reign. There is no doubt that Jochen Hellbeck is a leading historian of this new trend and his articles are a very interesting and ambitious attempt to override a long lasting debate between the totalitarian and revisionist schools.

It seems, however, that by basing his work on select diaries, Hellbeck has excessively focused on one aspect of Soviet subjectivity.^[1] This becomes evident by the prominence of terms starting with “self”: “self-transformation”, “self-perfection”, “self-purification” and so on. Certain individuals profiled in Hellbeck’s work – Podlubnyi, Afinogenov, etc. – are extraordinarily serious about remaking themselves and seek to amalgamate their self-identities with Stalinist values. In addition, these subjects’ behavior and way of thinking leave us with the image that they are lonely, confronted with the regime and its socialist construction projects without any real human relations or interaction with others. Frankly speaking, this reminds us again of the atomization thesis touted by totalitarian theorists. Hellbeck himself seems to partially admit as much, noting that the totalitarianists’ “view of society as being ‘atomized’ by the totalitarian regime comes tantalizingly close to Podlubnyi’s experience,” although he distinguishes himself from the totalitarian school, which assumed the existence of a private sphere expressing a ‘real’ self distinct from the Stalinist value system.^[2] In any event, the emphasis on the meaning of diaries as a tool of self-purification and self-identification with the regime leads to the image that Stalin’s Russia was a totalitarian society to a much greater degree than even most totalitarian theorists could conceive.

I propose a different approach to Soviet subjectivity by analyzing a different kind of diary. This short essay will give an overview of a collective diary and examine communal and interpersonal relations among ordinary people under Stalin and after.

* * *

Several students sharing a dorm room and studying at the faculty of literature at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute (Московский государственный педагогический институт) began keeping the collective diary. In 1932, four female students set up a domestic commune (бытовая коммуна) and undertook the keeping a collective diary in 1935.^[3] According to a commune member’s memoir from the 1970s, the commune was organized, fist of all, with the aim of dealing collectively with the hardships of daily life, pooling resources to purchase kerosene and taking turns at preparing hot breakfasts everyday. They called their collective “Commune No. 33,” taking the name from the number of their dormitory room. Their collective dining habits was coined the “kitchen trust” (кухтрест)^[4].

V. S. Novoselova, who had been born into teacher’s family in Volokolamsk in Moscow province on 23 august 1905, took the initiative in setting up the commune. She was several years older than other commune members, had a wealth of knowledge about life and literature, and already had eight years experience teaching in a rural school. All other members followed her leadership in their commune activities and collective studying, calling her starosta (leader) as Novoselova signed herself in the title on the pages of the commune’s diary.^[5] As a leader recognized by all members, she sometimes issued “decrees” in the form of numbered “prikaz.” But they were not so much decrees as notices filled with a good deal of humer humor. For example, prikaz no.1 was as follows:

…The kitchen trust is in effective from 15 September of this year (1933)[sic].
…Each member on duty has to show the maximum originality and flexibility for a week (skillfully negotiate prices, demands and…possibilities). In case funds remains at the end of week, I direct [the member on duty] to satisfy the desire of the stomachs of commune 33 on the weekend (but not to make them swell). Even if one unexpectedly exceeds the norm and she comes to stand in front of an empty safe at the end of week, I dir-r-rect her to feed!
…In the case that members of commune 33 should get different kinds of cash surprises, for example, premiums, prize money, heritage, expensive gifts, I direct them to cerebrate with delicious things: a watermelon, cakes, Easter cheese (over 13 rubles), candies (not cheaper than 18 rubles)…^[6]

In short, this domestic commune, unlike similar attempts made before the beginning of the 1930s, employed language that emphasized ideological features of promoting collectivization in daily life.^[7] Even in the bitter circumstances of the early 1930’s, the commune sought to make life easier through collective action, to create a pleasant mood and to provide support through cooperation in order to realize the common goal of becoming good teachers.^[8]
I
t was not until in 1935 that they began to keep their communal diary. The entire diary during the 1930’s probably consisted of 12 notebooks, numbered from 1 to 12. However, only numbers 1, 4, 6, 11, and 12 survived. The first notebook begins with the entry of 30 April 1935 by the starosta, Novoselova.

“With further encouragement” I express gratitude to the most good-natured member of our commune, L. Kozh[emiakina] for her devotion to cleaning of the floor of commune 33. Starosta Vera No[voselova].^[9]

This is one of many entries in which the starosta expresses her thanks to members of the commune in regards to their daily work. On the other hand, each member also often thanks Novoselova as follows:

10/? 35: I express my deep gratitude to the starosta of the commune for saving me from a cockroach on the evening of 9 May. In doing so, she displayed bravery and a fighting spirit no less than invincible that Saint George or Siegfried in the meeting and defeating of a dragon.^[10]

In addition to numerous trivial, but humorous records of their communal life mentioned above, the majority of space in the diary was filled with starosta’s “decrees,” notices and records on commune events, such as visiting the theater, going to museums, etc. There were only a few cases that refer to the problems of Soviet society and politically subtle issues. Although the members often recorded their individual opinions on certain topics, most of topics were about ostensibly non-political subjects, such as marriage.

Reading the pages of the diary leaves one with the impression that they were very careful of their friendship and tried to live their communal life as in an enjoyable a manner as possible. Novoselova, especially, filled the diaries with witty descriptions, funny illustrations and caricatures of the commune members and daily events. The diary seems to have functioned as a medium to cement and strengthen their friendship as well as to mitigate the hardships of daily life.

For example, one of Novoselova’s illustrations (18 November 1935) depicts the four commune members getting into a small boat. A short phrase attached to the illustration declares, “Ura! We do not need tram tickets anymore! Nor we do fear ‘annoying’ visitors (въедливые гости) anymore; we can immediately escape out of the room by this boat!^[11] Although it is a little difficult to affirm who the “annoying” visitors were (one of them was probably a male student who often came by their room and was generally disliked). In any event, this illustration suggests that Novoselova’s main concern was to preservation of intimate relations between the four members of the commune.

Their circle of friends was not limited to the four members living in room 33. A form of membership also extended to a few their intimate friends that often visited the room. Friends who did not live in room were called “honorary members.” Periodic parties with the honorary members were among the main functions of commune 33. They arranged the fund for these functions. Prikaz no. 9 (December 1935) written by starosta informed that Novoselova had received 50 rubles from the institute as a “premium for sitting up day and night to protect the interests of the inhabitants of commune 33” and that she would “ (1) distribute 10 rubles respectively to each member” and “(2) reserve 6 rubles for the fund for festivities with honorable members.”^[12]

Her description of the reason for having received money is probably mixed with some joke as usual. The interesting point is that starosta distributed an equal portion of her premium to each member and the commune had a fund preparing for social functions. In the diary there are also some entries regarding the parties themselves.

31/I 36 Prikaz no.12
I direct that:
1) The Feast be held on 6 February…
4) We purchase prudently, but according to the prikaz…a decoration cake (торт) is necessary, but not a bun (баба).
5) Honorable members, Anna Miller and Nat[al’ia] Rykova shall appear in colorful costume and feeling, and sing all night with all their timbre and [play all their] instruments (including a trombone).^[13]

They attempted to enjoy life by all means as if they intended to realize Stalin’s famous slogan from December 1935 that “life has become better, life has become cheerful.”

Another point should be noticed in the prikaz above. One of honorable members, Natal’ia Rykova, was the daughter of A. I. Rykov, Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR and a leader of “right deviation” at the end of the 1920s who was executed in 1938. She was a student at the same institute and was acquainted with commune members. Prikaz no.6 on 13 November 1935 informed that the commune was to “consider Natal’ia Rykova an honorable member” on the grounds that she participated in decorating room 33, treated commune members to their hearts’ content, and so on. But in prikaz no.7 issued immediately after no. 6, Novoselova warned members to “absolutely not…receive any materially expressed presents from honorable members (while they were not [honorable members], it was permitted)” and “to be nourished with their spiritual provisions.” For example, commune members should view “Natal’ia Rykova’s elegance and enjoying her affluent comments based on her own experience about the world of artists.”^[14] Natal’ia Rykova lived with her father who at that time was still a party and governmental leader, although he had already lost his real political influence. Accordingly her life style must have differed significantly from other members of the commune, even if she behaved like just another student. It is understandable that Novoselova sought to maintain equal horizontal and communal relations among full and honorable members alike.

The number of entries in the diary concerning state examination for graduating and becoming teachers grew throughout the year 1936. Final examinations ended on 22 June 1936. “Formidable pressure and distress were removed from me.” “Yes, now we can rest freely and say ‘finished,’ but it’s very strange that we don’t have to read anything.”^[15] Finishing examinations also meant the end of their communal life in room no. 33. Subsequently, the diary begins to contain many entries deploring the coming parting. “Farewell is getting closer and closer. Now we have divided the diary [notebooks].” And one by one, they departed from the room. “It’ a pity. The room is empty, there is nothing…V. S.[Vera Sergeevna Novoselova] left yesterday, Valia [V. P. Zakharova] and Vera M.[Vera Makhon’kaia (younger Vera)=V. G. Volkova] will leave today.”^[16] Novoselova left what was thought to be the final prikaz in the diary. “I propose not to be consider as starosta any longer, and…each of us can lead herself according to ability and desire.” Her entry was followed by regret and gratitude expressed by other members. The last entry of this notebook began with the following sentence: “How sad it is to write on the last page, what’s more of the last number of our honorable commune’s diary.”^[17]

After graduation from the institute and leaving the dormitory, each member of the commune became teachers at their respective schools in Moscow or Moscow oblast. But they, including the commune’s honorable members, continued to keep in touch with each other and soon even resumed their collective diary. Novoselova explained the necessity and meaning of the diary as follows: “They [the members of the commune] separated, but [commune] 33 has once again its own corner, where it’s possible to cry and dispel grief, to pour out pleasure and to be purified from the daily mud.”^[18]

Yet contrary to Novoselova’s expectation, the collective practice did not survive long. The reason was not the waning of their collective friendship, but the culmination of the Great Terror in 1937-38. On 27 February 1937, A. I. Rykov was arrested. Following his arrest, a similar fate awaited his family and relatives. His wife (Natal’ia’s mother), Nina Semenovna, also was arrested and Natal’ia Rykova was deported from Moscow for Tomsk.^[19] No doubt the fact that Natal’ia, an honorary member of their circle, was involved in the repression and that her parents were arrested as “enemy of people” must have had a tremendous impact on the remaining members. They must have realized that the continuation of the collective diary was extremely dangerous.

Dark clouds hang overhead. Natal’ia severed relations. On 7 June Nina Semenovna was arrested. On 27 September Natal’ia left for…Tomsk.

This was the last entry that appeared in the communal diary in the 1930s.^[20] The Terror heavily damaged communal and intimate relations fostered under the Stalinist regime.

* * *

Natal’ia Rykova was in prisons, in a concentration labor camp, and in exile for approximately 18 years until 1956^[21] when she was finally permitted to return to Moscow. During this period, the members of commune appear to have kept in touch with each other without Natal’ia Rykova. Probably sometime after Stalin’s death they also recovered contact with Natal’ia. Archived regular correspondence between Novoselova and Natal’ia Rykova dates from 1954.

On 30 September 1956, commune 33 once again resumed the keeping of the collective diary, as if they had waited Natal’ia’s return to Moscow. “After the long-term interruption, the old cadres have gathered: First, members of room 33 in full, then the honorable companion Natalochka...On this occasion we decided to resume our diary under the slogan ‘friends meet again.’”^[22] From that time (1956) until 1992, when the last entry was made, the diary amounted to a total of eight notebooks and over 1,000 pages. The diary touches on many topics. For example, on aspects of daily life, such as family, apartments, school, and so on. There are many active comments from commune members as active or retired teachers on educational policies and reforms. The first real references to political subjects come with new trends of literature that began in the wake of Stalin’s death and especially gained strength with the de-Stalinization that began in 1956. Beyond the medium of the diary, they occasionally met together and discussed many topics in each other’s apartments. Speaking about this perioed when a new mood appeared in Moscow as reflected in the outbreak of serious “kitchen” conversations among intellectuals, Raisa Orlova and Lev Kopelev summarized that “true public opinion took place for the first time.”^[23]

The circle of the commune 33 must have been similar to the intellectual groups that Orlova and Kopelev mentioned. The difference being that the commune 33 circle kept a collective diary. It seems that their diary functioned as small “public sphere” constructed intersubjectively. Members of the circle sometimes cut out articles from the newspaper and pasted them in the diary’s notebooks, commenting on the articles with humor or cynicism. For example, in an entry for 30 October 1962, an article that Stalin’ coffin would be removed from the Lenin mausoleum was accompanied by the following comments: “I laughed…,” “Yes, but this was a laugh through…[a] sigh (it’s [our] shame…in front of the world).” “You noticed that I had already demanded it on the 27 [of October], didn’t you? How well the opinion of working people is listened to here!”^[24]

In general they seemed to have expected the steady advance of the reforms and liberalization under Khrushchev. They strongly supported the new wave of literature. Novoselova stood out from the other members in this attitude. She wrote about her support for Tvardovsky, Solzhenitsyn, and so on: “21 October 62. I have read with E. V. [Evgeniia M. Kozhemiakina] “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” written by A. Solzhenitsyn, in issue 11 of Novyi Mir…The talent of the author is great and, to tell the truth,…[the] news is terrible and unbelievable for us…All who were close to ‘our bearded father (усатая батька)’ in those days immediately had to leave leadership positions,…from now on, we have to speak and think freely,…it’s necessary to stop forever all the boastful talk and cheating.”^[25]

On the other hand, the diary continued to play a constant role of preserving intimate relations among them. In the diary, members often referred to “the commune 33” as the origin of their long lasting friendship. It constituted a core part of their experiences and memories in the 1930s. On 25 August 1962, Novoselova issued prikaz after a long interval in the title of “starosta emeritus”:

In commemoration of a number of family, friendly and common human events I direct:
…With all the solemnity and love to celebrate the honorable thirtieth anniversary of our immortal friendship that was born in 1932 inside of Institute of Education… and for it:
1) To gather in the Zolotovitskii home on one of the Sundays at one o’clock…
3) All should appear in full dress.. should bring [the portions of the diary] that each received in parting in 1936…Ladies shall select the most important and interesting pages, and prepare for dramatic readings…^[26]

As suggested in the above-mentioned entry, the diary written in the 1930s became a symbol of their collective friendship that had now lasted over thirty years.

Novoselova’s death on 11 August 1967, merely five years after their thirtieth anniversary, brought about a considerable change to the diary and probably to their relationship. Novoselova’s caricatures and humorous illustrations vanished from the pages and the number of entries drastically decreased. During a little over 10 years between 1956-67, the diary numbered in 6 notebooks. But during the following 25 years it, was limited to 2 notebooks. It is undeniable that activities described in the diary entries also gradually declined, although this might be natural given their age. “12 July 1979: Valia [V. P. Zakharova] died.” “30 July [1979]: We gathered in Masha’s home and talked, discussed, and read a letter. It would be good, if Lyusia were here, too. Two remain from the four original members of commune 33.”^[27]

Although two members were lost, the remainder continued to get in contact with each other, keep the diaries, and sometimes gathered. “21 October [1979]: This gathering of full commune members was held in Lyusia’s home. Wonderful weather! It’s certain that we aren’t wonderful, but good as it is. It would be good for us to meet more often, although it is more and more difficult to crawl out of our homes.” “14 November [1982]: We gathered again in Natashenka’s home and celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of our friendship.”^[28]

Even after fifty years since the commune’s first meeting, the diary kept circulating among the members and retained its humor. “The diary will be handed to Lyusia with the following note:…b) Write down the most important incidents: educational, family, cultural, economic, political and so on. According to one”s own judgment, record all that is considered necessary (humorously, cheerfully, and optimistically). c) Purchase a notebook with calico binding and write on the book cover: No.8. “The survivors of the commune live in good health and [continue to] meet” (19 November 1983).”^[29]

Notebook no. 8 began on 28 October 1984 when the drastic changes were imminent in the Soviet Union. The notebook contained many entries concerning “perestroika,” but one of the main concerns that members displayed regarded the rehabilitation of old Soviet leaders executed under Stalin, including A. I. Rykov. “4 September [1987]: Aleksei Ivanovich [Rykov] was shown on television. He appeared first, others following him. This means something.”^[30] And at last, in February 1988, the Supreme Court decision regarding Rykov’s rehabilitation was announced. An diary entry on 4 February 1988, evidently written by V. G. Volkova (Zolotovitskaia), reads as follows:

I called Natasha and informed her about the plenary session of Supreme Court, in which A. I. Rykov was rehabilitated. Bitter and happy. How many tears, sufferings, bitters, pains she endured.^[31]

Notebook no. 8 ends in 1992 when sixty years have passed since the commune was first formed. In 1995, Natal’ia Alekseevna Rykova (Perli) and V. G. Volkova (Zolotovitskaia) delivered all diary notebooks and relevant materials were delivered to the archive.

* * *

A collective diary is not a personal document, but a kind of common property among members differing from most diaries written by individuals. The diary is not intended for the general public, but is kept and circulated within a closed private circle. A collective diary may function as a medium between the personal and public that solidifies a sense of community between the diary’s keepers. Every individual lives in relationship with others and these communal relationships are a resource for making and reshaping individual self. On the other hand, communality at times serves as the basis for realizing certain public values beyond individuals’ interests.

Commune 33 and its collective diary illustrate a type of interrelation between the individual, the community, and the public under Stalin and after his death. As far as can be understood from the overview of the diary, it seems that most members of commune 33 basically did not doubt the Stalinist regime as well as Soviet socialist projects in general – at least until 1937. They graduated as excellent students from the pedagogical institute and became teachers of good reputation – parts of Stalin’s ideological apparatus. In particular Novoselova became a model teacher, serving, for example, as the model for the characters in a typical Soviet literary work: The Story of Zoya and Shura.^[32] It is understandable that their self-realization was firmly connected with the regime’s values. But at the same time, friendly relations and mutual support in the commune in terms of daily life and studying would have brought up, developed or confirmed their each personality and their vision becoming a good teacher in Soviet society. In this regard, Novoselova is also likely to have played a significant role. The memoirs of commune members showed that she was a kind of mentor for them.^[33] In any event, the historical importance lies in the role that communal relations played in their demonstrated self-realization as key parts of the homo Sovieticus project as opposed that of an isolated individual.

In a different context, however, the strong community consciousness contributed to the opposite result and to the acquisition of new perspectives towards the regime. Members of the commune 33, especially Novoselova, showed critical attitude towards Stalin, his policies, and the Great Terror in the sections of the diary written after 1956. Though these attitudes are hardly unique for people who experienced de-Stalinization in 1956, the loss of Natal’ia Rykova and the crisis of their friendship in 1937 would have led them to a different evaluation towards Stalin and his regime from that of previous years.

As already noted, the diary after 1956 illustrates the existence of a kind of “public sphere” not opened to the general public. They seem to have been able to discuss all sorts of public issues through the relatively unrestricted medium of the diary and in their apartments. Their strong sense of community facilitated this open atmosphere and it is this atmosphere that distinguishes the diary in the 1930s from that in the years after the 1950s.

Despite much criticism of the thesis of atomization posited by totalitarian theorists, there seems to have been little research that has focused on real aspects of communality, especially friendship under the Stalinist regime. This essay, which tried to elucidate a type of friendship on the basis of a collective diary, is a first step in my larger project to reconsider the Stalinist era from a communitarian viewpoint.