The Conflict of the Changing Soviet Union

The article selected, Khrushchev, Modernism, and the Fight against "Petit-bourgeois" Consciousness in the Soviet Home, by Victor Buchli reviews Krushchev's takeover of the soviet government following the death of Josef Stalin, and builds its subject around the effects of Krushchev's 'secret speech', which argued against Soviet ornamentalism. The article also describes the cultural revolution which took place in the wake of Krushchev's 'secret speech', which completely redirected the government from the way it had been operating under Stalin, terror and murder were no longer options by which the government may take control of the people; this was a massive relief to the populations whose families had been ravaged and raped during Stalin's tyrannical rule over the U.S.S.R., particularly the circles of Intelligentsia and Nomenklatura.

Following Nikita Krushchev's 'secret speech' western observers noticed that elements of what might be called 'free societies' were introduced into the Soviet lifestyle. Freedoms and liberties became tenants of the Soviet regime, replacing murder and mayhem. At the time the Soviet union was dealing with three primary theoretical problems whose socio-political nature made them difficult to deal with at best. The problems of domesticity, petit-bourgeois consciousness, and the individualist issue of áûò (pronounced b-oui-t', meaning 'to be'). Unlike the Stalin-regime, the Soviet Union under Krushchev began several housing initiatives and did not persecute those who sought after áûò socialist reforms. By listening to the socialist reform platforms Krushchev wielded a double-edged sword. The áûò philosophy eventually gave rise to the Soviet äèçàéí policy (named after the English word 'design', which is what western observers had titled the new policies, pronounced dee-z-eye-n), which allowed the U.S.S.R. and its satellite states to begin restructuring their policies and governments around social and individual concerns, while still maintaining their basic socialist principles and their loyalty to Russia and the Politburo.

Soviets slowly realized áûò reform by the incorporation of áûò principles into their everyday life, primarily through the Ýíöèêëîïåäèÿ Äîìàøíåãî Xîçÿéñòâî (the Encyclopedia of Household Economics, pronounced entzeeklopyediya domaschnyevo khoziaistva) and several workers' groups' newsletters. Of great importance to the more modern áûò philosophy was the interior design and utility of homes- domesticity needed to be modernized and the petit-bourgeois style of things which was prevalent in Stalin's time was being modernized to be both more economical, and to flex the muscle of the Politburo's interior decorators, who wanted Soviet homes to be on par with those of more progressive nations.

The article continues on for some time about Soviet decour, and multi-functional furniture such as tables that transform into beds or bookshelves which become buffets. Of incredibly more significance is the áûò movement on the whole, and Krushchev's support of several such reform policies. Several political theorists believe that this could possibly have been one of the key moments in weakening the Soviet grip on their satellite states; by allowing the independent national puppet-governments to form structural departments to fit the needs of their nations Russia gave each Soviet power more and more free reign. Truly this was a trivial amount of free reign, as the satellite states could never completely break away from the U.S.S.R., but just as was demonstrated with the Polish worker strikes, it was possible to use what limited independent power the puppet governments were given and in turn gave to the people to bring about revolution and installation of members into the government whose primary loyalties were not to the politburo in Moscow but to the people they were installed to rule.

It can be said that even the smallest social changes, or changes in government made to accommodate new social trends, are foundations for revolution and liberation of oppressed peoples. If such is the case, then the Soviet Union was likely doomed to fail the moment it restricted civil liberties and those things the áûò movement came to represent- however as all governments move towards more socially liberal policies, all citizens become free to enjoy unparalleled freedom, as members of the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, East Germany, and other Soviet satellite states can swear to.