In the Leninist school of journalism

A. A. Kruglov , 1971

On the slope of his life, recalling the past decades, Anatoly Vasilyevich thought a lot about how the Leninist guard of Bolshevism took shape, grew and became a powerful creative force. He expressed these thoughts in lines that captivate with the refinement of thought, the depth of feeling and the power of the image.

“Selection to the revolutionary parties,” wrote Lunacharsky, “was exceptionally rich. Romantics without the power of objective thought were weeded out into the ranks of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Marxist theoreticians, without willpower, without a revolutionary movement, retreated into petty-bourgeois Menshevism. In the ranks of the Bolsheviks there remained those who combined respect for a completely accurate and sober thought with a very strong will, seething energy. This party, illegal for decades, required an extraordinary hardening.

... The Party and history itself tried people and discarded those of little use. Those who were tested by the harsh life remained. (1)

Lunacharsky went through the crucible of this harsh historical test and rightfully took one of the prominent places in the great party created and headed by V. I. Lenin. But his path was not smooth, not straight and not easy.

The biography of Anatoly Vasilievich developed in such a way that during the years of the formation of his personality, the formation of his worldview, he often did not have a good friend, leader and mentor, which his subtle, artistic, enthusiastic, temperamental nature so needed. In Zurich, for example, he was "lucky" to study philosophy under the guidance of ... Avenarius. The exiled life brought him together with people of the most diverse views, biographies and destinies. Among the political exiles in Vologda, he met a “company” that was especially whimsically composed by chance: the future empirio-criticist Bogdanov, the Socialist-Revolutionary terrorist Savinkov, the reactionary and mystic Berdyaev, and others. Even in those early years, Lunacharsky’s philosophical views contained a lot of confused, erroneous, false.

“And here,” he later wrote about his youthful enthusiasm for philosophy, “my ideas were not absolutely pure. In the last classes of the gymnasium, I was very fond of Spencer and tried to create an emulsion of Spencer and Marx. This, of course, was not very successful for me ... ". 2

It was in these attempts that Lunacharsky's future mistakes lay.

V. I. Lenin, who possessed the rarest ability to masterfully understand the dialectics of the development of human characters, with his inherent insight unraveled not only Lunacharsky’s talent, but also the complexity, inconsistency of his character, his positive and negative features, established how both would manifest themselves in various conditions, which of them are the leading ones that determine the development of the individual, how they can and should be used in the best possible way.

Lenin admired his comrades who knew him closely with his amazing ability to discern in each person his “zest”, to entrust him in a huge political orchestra with exactly the part that he could perform better than any other. This had its most beneficial effect when Vladimir Ilyich set up editorial teams for the Bolshevik publications of the period of the first Russian revolution.

Work in these publications under the leadership of Lenin and in collaboration with such prominent figures and publicists of Bolshevism as V. V. Vorovsky, M. S. Olminsky, I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov and others, played a huge role in the political and creative biography of Lunacharsky , creating a wide field for the development of his great talent and the manifestation of revolutionary temperament, for his Bolshevik hardening.

Vladimir Ilyich highly valued the extraordinary talent of the party publicist Lunacharsky. Here, for example, is what N. K. Krupskaya wrote about Lenin’s attitude to the “decorative”, as she put it, skill of Anatoly Vasilyevich, that is, to the brightness, colorfulness, emotionality of his style:

“Literary design is an art. Here the tone, style, the ability to speak figuratively, to make the necessary comparison are important ...

Designing is an art. And Vladimir Ilyich especially appreciated those members of the editorial board and employees who had a talent for design. This is not only a matter of style and language, but the whole manner of developing and illuminating the issue. From this side, Vladimir Ilyich especially appreciated Anatoly Vasilyevich Lunacharsky, spoke about this more than once. 3

Recalling further about the collective discussions at meetings in the editorial office of Iskra about the next issue of the newspaper, Nadezhda Konstantinovna wrote:

“Here someone expresses some true and interesting thought, Anatoly Vasilyevich will pick it up and be able to arrange it so beautifully, with talent, dress it in such a brilliant uniform that the author of the thought even wonders if this is really his idea, so simple and often clumsy, resulted in such an unexpectedly elegant, fascinating form. 4

Lenin closely followed Lunacharsky's work, constantly helping him with comradely advice and friendly criticism, trying to develop the strengths of his talent. At the same time, he cared about the peculiarities of the style and general manner of writing of the publicist, appreciated them.

In 1905, the Menshevik N. Zhordania published a pamphlet entitled “The Majority or the Minority?” a series of articles from the Georgian Menshevik organ Sotsial-Democrat directed against the Bolsheviks. Outraged by this slanderous little book, Lunacharsky wrote to Lenin:

“ I can’t read the vulgarization of the disagreements of Kostrov  6 directly. What are you thinking of answering? After all, this impudent quintessence of lies and meanness can make an impression on uncultured minds, on those who are little informed: after all, this is Black Hundred literature. 7

Vladimir Ilyich sent a detailed reply letter to Lunacharsky, in which he outlined a plan for actions against the Mensheviks, defined the tasks, content and nature of these actions, and also indicated which part of the plan, in his opinion, he himself should fulfill, and which Anatoly Vasilyevich should carry out.

“Here,” wrote Lenin, “we need, in my opinion, two things: firstly, “a brief outline of the history of the split.” Popular. From the beginning, with economics. with accurate documents. Divided into periods...

Secondly, we need a lively, sharp, subtle and detailed characterization (literary-critical) of these Black Hundreds....

For the first topic, I, perhaps, will take up, but not now, not soon; once…

I would not take the second one and I think that only you could do it . Sad work, stinking, no words - but after all, we are not white-handed people, but newspapermen, and it is impermissible for social-democratic publicists to leave "meanness and poison" unstigmatized.

Think about it and write it down." 8

Noting the liveliness, emotionality, and subtlety of Lunacharsky's polemical speeches, Lenin also clearly saw their weaknesses: a lack of depth, composure, and tactical insight in a number of cases. In the heat of the polemical struggle, the temperamental and enthusiastic publicist sometimes did not quite accurately calculate the direction and strength of his blows. And then Vladimir Ilyich kindly but sternly pointed out his mistakes and explained them. Thus, for example, he drew attention to the fact that Lunacharsky's work in 1907 on the Party's attitude toward the trade unions "is capable of arousing many rumors. This happens, - Vladimir Ilyich pointed out, - for two reasons: firstly, being carried away by the struggle against a narrow and incorrect understanding of Marxism, with an unwillingness to take into account the new demands of the working-class movement and look at the subject wider and deeper,A.K. )…”. 9 All this is said in Vladimir Ilyich's lengthy and detailed preface to the work itself. In a personal letter from Lenin to Anatoly Vasilyevich it was said:

“As for the content of your pamphlet, I liked it very much, as did our entire public. An interesting and well-written piece. Only one thing: there are many external indiscretions, so to speak, that is, such that all sorts of Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Syndicalists, etc., will find fault with. We deliberated collectively, to retouch or stipulate in the preface? We decided the latter, because it is a pity to retouch; it would mean too much to break the integrity of the exposition.

Of course, a conscientious and attentive reader will be able to correctly understand you, but you should still specifically fence yourself off against false interpreters, for their name is legion. 10

Anatoly Vasilievich forever kept warm and grateful memories of working in the Bolshevik newspapers Vperyod, Proletary, Novaya Zhizn, a joyful feeling of communication with Lenin.

“... Lenin,” he later wrote, “was, of course, the brain and heart of these newspapers, and, working ... with great intensity, collectively and amicably, we experienced great pleasure from this always lively, resourceful, flaming leadership.” 11

Speaking in March 1931 about the life of a small foreign colony of Bolsheviks in 1905, Anatoly Vasilyevich noted the atmosphere of genuine enthusiasm and creative burning that Vladimir Ilyich knew how to create among his associates.

“... We had the impression,” he said, “that we are making history, and all this is thanks to Vladimir Ilyich. Vladimir Ilyich, by his mere presence, gave everything a character of extraordinary size...

This large-scale work, faith in its enormous significance, of course, inspired people, gave a special uplifting character to all our work. 12

Lunacharsky was under the direct leadership of Lenin even after his return from exile, in the midst of the revolutionary battles at the end of 1905. But the revolution was defeated. Years of ferocious and gloomy reaction followed. Lunacharsky again seeks refuge outside his homeland.

“I think,” Anatoly Vasilyevich later wrote, “that, despite my then close friendship with Bogdanov, I would not have made mistakes in the future if circumstances had not forced me to emigrate almost immediately after returning from the Stockholm Congress.

This established a certain distance between me and the party center, extremely, of course, unpleasant and fraught with consequences. 13

This explanation of his errors is correct, but completely insufficient. Lunacharsky had the opportunity to grow into a major proletarian revolutionary and publicist, he had the precious experience of working under the leadership of Lenin, but at that time he had not yet had time to pass the “test of harsh life” and acquire that very “extraordinary hardening”, without which, as he said, one cannot imagine a real Bolshevik. And Lunacharsky came to Machism and "god-building." These mistakes and their severity must by no means be hushed up.

“Lunacharsky,” said one of the articles in the journal Kommunist, “is one of the prominent figures in our party, socialist culture. It would be injustice to hush up his merits. But the other extreme is also far from the truth - a simplified, one-line, pomaded image of a cultural figure, which is drawn by individual authors. The real Lunacharsky is much more controversial. His path was more difficult, scientific and creative searches were more intense.14

Lunacharsky's departure from Marxism, from Bolshevism, was severely condemned by Lenin. However, Vladimir Ilyich was convinced that Lunacharsky's revolutionary temperament would inevitably arouse a yearning for a living cause, that Anatoly Vasilyevich would leave the "Vperyodists" as soon as he was convinced that they were a pitiful and powerless, adventurist group of intellectuals, deprived of contact with the masses and influence on them, "revolutionary” in words and anti-revolutionary in deeds, reactionary in theory. Lenin believed that the very first peals of the revolutionary storm, victorious this time, would imperiously call Lunacharsky to the camp of the Bolsheviks.

A. M. Gorky, talking about his meetings in Capri with Vladimir Ilyich, recalled that Lenin once spoke about the future of Bogdanov, Bazarov and Lunacharsky:

“... smart, talented people, they did a lot for the party, they could do ten times more, but they won’t go with us! Cannot. And dozens, hundreds of such people break, disfigures this criminal system.

On another occasion he said:

- Lunacharsky will return to the party, he is less individualistic than those two (A. A. Bogdanov, V. A. Bazarov. - A. K). An extremely richly gifted nature. I “have a soft spot” for him—damn it, what stupid words: have a soft spot! You know, I love him, he's a great friend! It has a French flair to it. His frivolity is also French, frivolity - from his aestheticism. 15

What Lenin said to Gorky about Lunacharsky's return to the party was not just a wish, but a very sober, precisely balanced and deeply justified opinion. He fought for Lunacharsky, repeatedly took steps to tear him away from the "Vperyodists", return him to the ranks of the Bolshevik Party, and, as we know, he achieved this. And when the Great October Socialist Revolution took place, Vladimir Ilyich, without hesitation, proposed Lunacharsky's candidacy for the post of People's Commissar of Education.

“It’s good that after… wandering through the “leftist” mistakes, the approach of a new revolutionary wave threw me back on the right paths, on which I found a friendly welcome from Lenin,” 16 Anatoly Vasilyevich recalled those days with gratitude.

Lenin highly valued Lunacharsky's abilities and activities and invariably spoke of him with great warmth. One of these reviews was heard by O. Yu. Schmidt. He told how once, in response to some reproaches against Lunacharsky, Lenin remarked: "This man not only knows everything and is not only talented - but this man will also fulfill any party assignment and will fulfill it excellently." 17

1.  "Lenin is a comrade, a man." Collection. M., 1963, p. 180. ↩
2. A. V. Lunacharsky. Memories and impressions. M., 1968. p. 18. ↩
3. See "Lenin - Journalist and Editor". M., 1960, p. 289. ↩
4. See ibid., pp. 289–290. ↩
5. At this time, Lenin lived in Switzerland, and Lunacharsky - in Italy. ↩
6. Nickname N. Jordan. ↩
7. CPA IML , f. 142, Op. 1, unit hr. 1, l. 2. ↩
8. V. I. Lenin. Full coll. cit., vol. 47, pp. 57–58. ↩
9. V. I. Lenin. Full coll. cit., vol. 16, p. 183. ↩
10. V. I. Lenin. Full coll. cit., vol. 47, p. 115. ↩
11. A. Lunacharsky. Stories about Lenin. M., 1968, page 15. ↩
12. CPA IML , f. 142, Op. 1, unit hr. 13, l. 11–15. ↩
13. A. Lunacharsky. Stories about Lenin, p. 25. ↩
14. "On the attitude to the literary heritage of A. V. Lunacharsky." - Kommunist, 1962, No. 10, p. 33. ↩
15. M. Gorky. Sobr. soch., vol. 18. M., 1963, p. 266. ↩
16. A. Lunacharsky. Stories about Lenin, p. 25. ↩
17. "Bulletin of the Communist Academy", 1935, No. 3, p. 39.