www.lituanus.org
Copyright © 1963 Lithuanian Students Association, Inc.   Vol. 9, No.2 - 1963 Editor of this issue: Thomas Remeikis

A Note on Book Publishing Statistics as an Index to Soviet Cultural Policy

Thomas REMEIKIS

1. A Marxist Critique of Socialism

In a totally controlled society all public communications media, including the printed materials, can be expected to reflect the current policies of the group in power. The available statistical data on book publishing activity in a soviet society provides a good empirical index of the actual, as opposed to the formally professed, direction of cultural policy. Book publishing activity is much more accurately described and easier to handle than, for example, the content of radio or T. V. communications, the periodical press, and the direct appeals of agitprop workers.

The available statistical data on book publishing activity in Lithuania under the Soviets during the years 1910-19601 provides interesting and significant conclusions on the cultural policies in the Soviet Union and illustrate the divergence of theory and reality in a soviet society, a condition which, according to Marxist theory, could not exist in a socialist environment but was true only in the capitalist society. Applying Marxist theory we find that perhaps the soviet society of today is more like the capitalist society condemned by Marx. Let us consider this for a moment.

According to Marx, the individual, situated in a certain position in the production process, is made aware of reality in a particular way by various institutions of society. As Marx says, "It is not consciousness that determines life, but life determines consciousness."2 The perception of reality is a function of the individual's position or status in life.

The important point of Marx's theory of knowledge is that the consciousness of reality possessed by the individual is a false consciousness. The ideas or pictures of material things that the individual has are inadequate to describe reality; they either distort or veil reality. Thus there is a contradiction between the reality as it really is and reality as represented in the individual's mind. The individual cannot evaluate reality correctly by his own consciousness because of the inherent contradiction between mind and reality. In the words of Marx, "As little as one judges what an individual is by what he thinks of himself, so little can one judge such an epoch of trans-formation (of productive forces and production relation) by its (society's) consciousness:"3 In short, Marx suggests that our ideas or abstraction of material things are inadequate to describe reality and our ideologies, therefore, are false and illusive.

The institutions of society are a kind of mediating structure through which the individual is made aware of social reality. But this awareness of reality is false, because the institutions are determined by the production relations of a capitalist society and are designed for the advancement of the capitalist interest.

Marx charged the capitalists with maintaining an illusive image of reality as a control device of the masses; this charge can also be applied against the soviet ruling elite. In fact, the continuous propaganda, the extremely optimistic outlook, the official explanation of all phenomena indicate the persuasiveness of the illusive conception of reality in soviet society. The contradiction of theory and reality in a soviet society is undeniable, though often it is difficult to demonstrate. A case in point is the meaning of the soviet formula for cultural policy: "national in form, socialist in content."

TABLE 1 The Language of Books Published by the Soviet Regime in Lithuania, 1940-19594

TABLE 2 Distribution of Published Books Among Various Subject-Matter Categories, 1940-19554

 TABLE 3 Annual Output of Literary Works, Published in the Lithuanian Language, 1940-19604

The soviet cultural formula is difficult to evaluate in its application, because it arbitrarily distinguishes the form and the content of cultural objects. While it is relatively easy to distinguish what has a "national form", i. e. language, dress, manners, it is difficult to define what the "socialist content" means. It turns out, as the book publishing statistics indicate, for example, that the "socialist content" is equal to the hegemony of Russian culture over others. Thus we see in the formula "national in form, socialist in content" a semantic "clouding of the consciousness" in perception of reality, a contradiction between the professed and the actual meaning of the concept. In effect, the soviet cultural formula becomes an instrument of the ruling elite to preserve a multi-national state.

2. Ideology, Power and Control

The general publishing statistics (Tables 1, 2, and 3) are indicative of several features of the soviet society: the primacy of ideology, the struggle for power, and the planned totalitarian control. Book publishing, just as other cultural activities, is related in a highly planned fashion to the immediate and long-range political, economic, and social goals of the ruling elite.

The importance of political and socio-economic literature is suggested in Table 2, in which 31.1% of all the copies published during 1940-1955 are classified as political and socio-economic literature. It may be generalized that its importance in a society declines as the society is transformed from a capitalist into a socialist society. In fact, the Marxist dialectic would explain this as a necessary tendency, resulting from the gradual elimination of class conflict as the society moves toward communism. In a certain respect this would be correct, since by the gradual imposition of soviet power, indoctrination of the younger generation, and reeducation of at least part of the older generation the need for political literature and emphasis on ideological re-orientation of the population decreases. Publishing statistics tend to support this. In 1946, during an extremely violent armed resistance of the population against the regime, political literature comprised 45% of the total output (in number of copies). As the resistance was overcome, political literature declined to 29.8% in 1950 and to 15.3% in 1955.

This is not to say that ideology has lost its importance. Actually, ideology still is an important determinant of the type of books to be published. Only the purely political pamphleteering has lost importance, while all life is still permeated with ideological spirit. It must be remembered that industrialization is the key to the communist transformation of society. An economic transformation of society is undertaken along with political subjugation of the population. Thus with the decline of political literature we see the rise of industrial technical literature (from the low of .5% in 1946 to the high of 9.8% in 1955) (Table 2). Furthermore, natural sciences and mathematics can be expected to play an important role in the ideological and technical transformation of society. The natural sciences are especially utilized in the inculcation of a materialistic world view in the population. Between 1940 and 1955 literature on natural sciences and mathematics had the third largest volume.

When the Soviets took over Lithuania in 1940, Lithuania was primarily an agricultural country. The soviet regime, however, set on transforming Lithuania into an industrial society, neglected questions of agricultural concern in the printed materials. In 1946 only 1.5% of the total volume of books was devoted to agricultural subjects. However, with the increasing concern for agricultural productivity, especially since 1953, agricultural literature rose to 11.7% of the total volume of books in 1955. In general, the distribution of books among the various subject-matter categories throughout the years reflect the economic plans and political goals of the regime. The totality of control in a soviet society is apparent even in such a limited cultural activity as the preparation and publication of books.

Table 3 is suggestive of several social and political developments in the Soviet Union. De-Stalinization had the effect of releasing more pre-soviet Lithuanian literary works for republication. If in 1919 the total volume of works of pre-soviet Lithuanian writers was 29,000 copies and of soviet works - 161,000; in 1955 - 95,000 and 184,000 respectively; in 1957 the volume of pre-soviet works jumped to 167,000 copies and of the soviet works to 287.000.5 In 1953 and 1959 the Kremlin began to clamp down on nationalistic tendencies and a sudden drop in the volume of pre-soviet literature resulted - to 30,000 copies in 1960. At the same time the soviet-period works rose steadily, to 466,000 copies in 1960. The ratio of pre-soviet and soviet books changed from 4:10 in 1945 to 2:53 in 1960. This is partly a result of cultural policies of the regime and partly due to the maturation of a new generation of writers, developed entirely within the soviet society. The quest for a "soviet culture" resulted in the rapid promotion of "soviet period" writers and works.

It is significant to observe the weight of the Russian literature throughout the years. During the years of the Lithuanian nation's most violent resistance (1945-1950) there was a marked dominance of Russian literature (see Table 3). Starting with 1950 we see a declining tendency. Evidently, with the growth in the number and output of the Lithuanian soviet writers there was less need to rely on Russian literature to provide ideologically acceptable cultural entertainment for the masses. From Table 4 we see that of the total number of books published during the period of 1940-1955 in the Lithuanian language, 35.9% were original works and 43.3% were translations, mainly from the Russian. The respective figures for 1955 are as follows: 40.1% originals, 30.2% translations. Unfortunately, figures for subsequent years were not available. These figures and the indicated recent rise of soviet Lithuanian writers and works confirm the coming into dominance of a new soviet Lithuanian intelligentsia. The result of this was a slight decline of Russian influence in the cultural field. This is also apparent in other areas of life. For example, the soviet regime in Lithuania at present is run by native communists; this was not the case, let us say, in 1952.

3. The Meaning of Soviet Cultural Policy

The use of native language is not the best indication of acculturation and assimilation of the nations in the Soviet Union. The 1959 census of the Soviet Union revealed that most of the nationalities in the Soviet Union maintained the native tongue surprisingly well: 87.6% of the Ukrainians, 84.1% of the Byelorussians, 98.4% of the Usbeks, 98.4% of the Georgians, 97.8% of the Lithuanians used the native language.6 This is characteristic of the great majority of nationalities in the Soviet Union. In other words, the "national form" has been maintained to an amazing extent. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the use of native language in book publishing. From Table 1 we see that in Lithuania the percent distribution of books in various languages does not greatly deviate from the percentages of respective nationalities in the Lithuanian population. According to the 1959 census, there were 79.3% Lithuanians, 8.5% Russians, and 8.5% Poles in the population of Lithuania.7 Of the total number of copies published in 1940-1955, 82.3% were in the Lithuanian language, 14.0% in Russian, 2.2% in Polish. There is a noted bias in favor of the Russian language, primarily at the expense of Polish. In 1952 the Russian population, which probably was not over 16% of the Lithuanian population, received 22.0% of printed matter. Of the total number of copies published in 1940 -1959, 81.2% were in the Lithuanian language, or just 1.9% off the Lithuanian population in Lithuania.

Table 1 shows a definite pattern in the use of the Lithuanian language in publications. The percentages of copies in the Lithuanian language gradually declined until they reached the low point of 73.9% in 1951. Since 1951 the percentage again gradually rose to a high of 81.0% in 1953. The decline in the use of Lithuanian was due partly to the influx of a Russian population into Lithuania after the war (the Russian element in Lithuania rose from about 2.5% in 1939 to 8.5% in 1959) and in part to the Stalinist suppression. After the death of Stalin the percentage of copies in the Lithuanian language again rose until it coincided with the percentage of Lithuanian population. Thus, in general, the utilization of the various languages is adjusted to the ethnic makeup of the population, but with a slight tendency to favor the Russian.

The utilization of native language does not in itself exclude the cultural dominance of one nation over another or the indoctrination of alien values and characteristics. This, in fact, is the most notable feature revealed by book publishing statistics.

Tables 4 and 5 indicate the extent to which works of foreign origin dominate the printed materials. During the period 1940-1955 of the total number of copies published, only 33.5% were original works of Lithuanian authors, while translations from the Russian amounted to 46.2% The same can be noticed in the publications of literary works. During the period 1940-1960, of the total literary production (excluding critiques and children's literature) 37.3% of the books and 27.1% of the authors were of Lithuanian origin, 39.1% of the books and 43.0% of the authors were Russians or from other nations in the Soviet Union. Russian dominance in the literary scene is even more pronounced for the period 1940-1955, when 43.8% of the books, 38.8% of the total num ber of copies published, and 43.3% of the total number of copies published, and 43.3% of the authors were of Russian origin. Thus, although the native language (form) is utilized quite adequately for the population concerned, the cultural orientation (content) is of foreign origin, mainly Russian. The form is native, but the content is predominantly Russian (and not necessarily socialist). The exchange of cultural values is far from being mutual; it is rather one-sided, in favor of the Russian culture. Here one is tempted to suggest that perhaps it is the content of mind rather than its form, i. e. its language, that ultimately determines to which ethnic or cultural category an individual belongs. The printed materials available to a nation constitute an important determinant in the nation's cultural and political orientation. The printed word is one of several channels through which the value orientation and world-view of one nation can gradual ly be superimposed upon another. The preceding data suggests that acculturation of nations in the Russian Empire is much more pronounced than the use of native language suggests.

TABLE 4
Distribution of Total Book Production According to Language of Publication and According to Original Language and Translations, 1940-19554

TABLE 5
Distribution of Literary Works and Authors According to Nationality, Published in Lithuanian & Other Languages, 1940-19604

Independent Lithuania, despite its previous occupations by Czarist Russia, has been notably western-oriented. The younger generation of the intelligentsia was intimately connected to the Western currents of thought. This orientation, pronounced through many centuries, is being turned Eastward. This is vividly illustrated by the fact that of all the literary works published during the period 1940-1960, 43.6% of the works and 51.2% of the authors belong to the soviet bloc countries and are principally of Russian origin (see Table 5). An even more pronounced tendency toward the East is perceived in the data for 1940-1955 (Table 5), which also includes children's literature statistics: 52.4% of the published, 43.6% of all the copies, and 59.5% of all the authors belong to the soviet bloc. Isolation from the West is apparent in that only from 10% to 15%of all literary works or authors belong to the non-communist world. A large portion of this Western literature consists of literary classics such as Shakespeare, Goethe, Hine, De Maupassant, Hugo, Flaubert, Didro, Balzac, Dickens, Byron, Kipling, Hemingway, London, etc. Table 3 further suggests that Western literature was published in a larger volume only after 1956.

The Eastern orientation and content of literary output is also evident from Table 3. The so-called Soviet-period literature, Lithuanian and Russian, comprises about 51% of the total book production during 1940-1960. Thus, if the Lithuanian soviet writers who grew up under the soviet regime and accepted its literary precepts are added to the other soviet bloc writers and works, the Eastern orientation of authors and works reaches to about 70% of the total number of books and authors published. There can be little doubt that a tremendous planned transformation of the Lithuanian culture and mind has been going on since 1940. And here again it can be said that the content of cultural activity is not necessarily "socialist" oriented, but shows a marked bias in favor of the Russian element.

4. The Condition of Freedom for Creativity

What are the consequences of this regimentation of cultural activity and enforcement of the false conception of reality upon the soviet intelligentsia? What is the effect on the creative spirit? An empirical suggestion can be given.

When the Red Army reoccupied Lithuania in 1944-1945, many writers retreated into exile in the democracies of the West. In 1959 the Lithuanian Writers Association in exile had 98 members, while the Soviet Writers Union in Lithuania had 96 members. In fifteen years, 1946-1960, the writers in exile produced 289 original works, while during the same period writers under soviet control produced only 191 original works.8 These figures become even more significant if it is remembered that after the war the exiled writers found themselves in adverse economic and social conditions, while the soviet writers are professional state employees, with all the necessary conditions for creative work, except freedom.

The conclusion to be derived from the cited figures is that even the generous state support of the writers fails to produce a suitable climate for creativity if freedom of expression is circumscribed by an illusive definition of reality. One is tempted to suggest that the false world-view which is rigidly enforced upon the intelligentsia tends to negate creativity of the human mind. The writer, through his power of insight into the human condition, will discover truth sooner than other sections of the intelligentsia and will react energetically, as indeed he does in the Soviet Union. This is indicated by the soviet regime's recent reaffirmation to maintain writers and artists under strict Party control, and by the continuous attacks on the "innovators" and other types of "deviationists" from the officially prescribed norms of socialist realism. The relaxation of control on artistic expression can easily result in an outright denounciation of the falsity of soviet reality.

1. This discussion is based primarily on two works: Lietuvos TSR Knygų Rūmai. Lietuvos TSR spaudos statistika, 1940-1955 (Chamber of Books of Lithuanian SSR, Press Statistics of Lithuanian SSR. 1940-1955), Vilnius, 1957; Grožinė literatūra, 1940-1960 (Literature, 1940-1960), a Catalogue of Literature. Art and Music, edited by I. Jurevičiūtė, Vilnius. 1961; hereafter these works will be cited by original title only.
2. From Karl Marx's The German Ideology in Capital, the Communist Manifesto and Other Writings by Karl Marx, ed. Max Eastman. New York, 1932. p. 10.
3. From Karl Marx's Introduction to Critique of Political Economy In Eastman's edition of Marx's writings, cited in note 2, p. 10.
4. SOURCES OF TABLES:
Table 1. Lietuvos TSR spaudos statistika, 1940-1955, pp. 44-46; Centrinė Statistikos Valdyba prie Lietuvos TSR Ministrų Tarybos. Tarybų Lietuvos dvidešimtmetis. Statistinių duomenų rinkinys (Central Administration of Statistics of the Lithuanian SSR Council of Ministers, Twenty Tears of Soviet Lithuania, a Collection of Statistical Data). Vilnius, 1960, pp. 320-321; hereafter cited by original title only.
Table 2. Lietuvos TSR spaudos statistika, 1940-1955, pp. 50-53.
Table 3. Grožinė literatūra 1940-1960, compiled from pp. 7-145. A note is necessary on the classification of literature as pre-soviet and soviet. As far as Lithuanian literature is concerned, the Soviets classify all works written before June 1940 as pre-soviet, even though they were by communist writers, such as the writings of a communist author Aleksas Jasutis. On the other hand, all works written after 1940 and those of pre-soviet period authors who acquiesced to the soviet line, are considered as soviet literature; thus the works of V. Mykolaitis-Putinas, most of which were written before the soviet occupation of Lithuania, are considered soviet literature. Such classification distorts the real situation to some extent; nevertheless, the classification is still indicative of the general tendencies.
Table 4. Lietuvos TSR spaudos statistika, 1940, 1955, pp. 47-48.
Table 5. Lietuvos TSR spaudos statistika, 1940-1955. pp. 69-70; Grožinė literatūra 1940-1960, pp. 7-145.
5. Compiled from Grožinė literatūra, 1940-1960.
6. Pravda, February 4, 1960, p. 2.
7. Tarybų Lietuvos dvidešimtmetis, p. 78.
8. E. Babrauskas. "The Lithuanian Writer in America and His Book" Aidai (Echoes), March, 1963. p. 112.