How significant was the manipulation of Soviet youth in maintaining the communist ideology after the Russian Revolution? (1920-1930)

http://<https://www.culture.ru/events/605076/vstrecha-na-krylyakh-komsomolskoi-mechty >

This investigation will explore the following research question.

How important was the soviet youth's manipulation in keeping the communist doctrine alive after the Russian revolution (1920–1930)?

The materials used for a thorough analysis include "The Tasks of the Youth Leagues" (Vladimir Lenin's speech from the Third All-Russia Congress of The Russian Young Communist League in 1920) and "The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia" by Orlando Figes, published in 2007.

Vladimir Lenin emphasizes the value of young people in forging the nation's future and upholding the communist doctrine in "The Tasks of the Youth League." Because it comes directly from Lenin, the architect of the Bolshevik revolution, this source's origins are noteworthy because they provide a window into his personal ideologies and political ideas. One may thus immediately evaluate his perspective on the importance of youth and the activities they ought to carry out in support of the recently created society. However, since it is a speech, its origin is limited in that it does not provide information on the outcomes and success of the youth, making it impossible to assess its relevance. Due to the subjectivity surrounding Marxist ideals, the tone, persuasive language, pathos, and other factors, it is also constrained.

Given the battle to uphold the dictatorship after the Revolution, the speech's goal was to inspire the Russian youth revolutionaries to finish their jobs. This is important because it shows how important youth was to Lenin and the Bolsheviks at the time, as well as their goals and strategies. However, the speech's restriction in terms of content and goal is that it was given to persuade the youth of the communist viewpoints, leaving out other strategies that are crucial for maintaining the dictatorship.

A historical work titled "The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia" explores the impact of the Soviet regime's propaganda and terror operations on families and young people as well as the coercive methods of indoctrination. The book's goal is valuable in that it emphasizes repression techniques and the role of youth from an unbiased viewpoint. The fact that the genesis was written by historian Orlando Figes, a specialist in Russian history, adds to its worth. The source also benefits from hindsight because it was published in 2007, and various sources, including letters, memoirs, and discussions, are used to support the points.

However, the book's content is limited by the fact that it covers a wide time period and has a broad focus on repression in general rather than just youth (1917-1960). Nevertheless, it is advantageous that the two chapters are primarily concentrated only on the control of education and techniques of repression during the period 1917–1922, since this presents views from several angles, including the experience of the people during that time.

Bolshevik governmental authority over Russia increased as a result of the 1917 Russian Revolution, therefore it was necessary to put in place several strategies to protect the new system from outside threats and extreme poverty. The primary goal was to indoctrinate the populace into the communist collective way of life by transforming pre-revolutionary "bourgeois" and tsarist culture into proactive socialist forms of behavior and belief. As a result, additional attention was given to the educational establishment of a new communist society that included a social policy of moderation and discipline as the New Economic Policy was adopted in 1921. The youth were therefore considered crucial for spreading communist ideologies among the next generations, emancipating themselves from the incoherent pre-revolutionary beliefs, and establishing a strong social hegemony. There are various opinions on the effectiveness and degree of significance compared to other approaches, but there is no denying that youth had a significant impact.

First, from a Marxist perspective, the youth were well suited for the job because they were simpler to control, they yearned to join the revolution and be included, and this could be accomplished effectively through changes to the school system. For instance, a schooling theorist4 draws attention to the Bolsheviks' perspectives on the value of youth and how readily they can be controlled once they have grown apart from their parents and become members of the community. Youth were crucial because they might be liberated from outdated views, allowing for communist ideology indoctrination and maintenance.

The adoption of Communist values was a guiding concept of the Soviet school curriculum, as was the importance of Marxism in Soviet schools, which was comparable to the importance of religion in former tsarist schools, as was underlined in Lenin's speech. For instance, after the Civil War, kids were urged to pretend to be rebels. The systematic "learning by play" approach, which allows kids to learn the Soviet principles of responsibility, social activism, and collectivism, was supported by educational theorists in the Soviet Union. Therefore, instilling group loyalty and the notion that the kids had the potential to become revolutionaries was one of the key responsibilities of the Soviet school, as emphasized in Lenin's speech. Snitching, even on one's parents, was widely encouraged, as seen in Figes' interviews, and was especially popularised by "Pavlik Morozov," a role model who revealed his father to the party and inspired the young people to follow in his footsteps. . In this way, the youth played a crucial role in fostering communism among the next generation as well as assisting the party in spotting dissent and suspicious activity.

According to conventional wisdom, establishing Youth Leagues like the Komsomol and the Young Pioneers in 1918 was crucial as a means of educating young people about the CPSU's principles, preparing them to join the revolution, and enlisting their voluntary assistance in constructing the state9. The Komsomol, which was initially founded in 1918 as the Communist party's youth wing, was tasked with portraying the ideal communist worker through participation in a variety of voluntary endeavors and serving as a role model of "communist upbringing." They were required to volunteer for the most dangerous occupations, such as helping with the harvest, signing up for new building jobs, working in the mines, or going wherever the group sends them.  In addition, they were essential in eliminating the Kulaks, lowering the rate of illiteracy, and serving as shock troops in the kolkhoz. They greatly aided in industrialization and economic recovery in this way, which helped to preserve the rule. By setting an example for the Pioneer youth, the Komsomol membership peaked during the NEP in March 1926 at 1,750,000, rising to 3,00,000 in 1931 with the implementation of Stalin's 5 - year plan in 1928.  This highlights the effectiveness of enticing young people to join collectivization and work for the Party without receiving anything in return besides recognition. It is impossible to assess the significance of the respective opinion without comparing it to other Party approaches because it only considers the effectiveness of youth, which makes it rather incomplete.

On the other hand, historians like Oliver Lewis, Merle Fainsod, and Orlando Figes offer different viewpoints on the effectiveness of youth indoctrination. It is possible to obtain insight into how "the entire body of Soviet youth was ready to rise in revolt against the communist system at the first opportunity" through access to conversations with ex - Soviets. For instance, the views of their grandparents were still based on outdated Tsarist principles, raising the possibility of conflict between religious convictions and the communist doctrine taught in schools. The dislike of collectivization, the hardships suffered with no discernible returns, and the religious beliefs led to some skepticism regarding the system, which could not be destroyed through propaganda. Therefore, one cannot argue that the manipulation of youth was completely successful during that time because the image of the Soviet Youth seems to be not that orthodox after all, at least not internally.

However, historians like Orlando Figes, Merle Fainsod, and Oliver Lewis offer alternative viewpoints on the effectiveness of youth indoctrination. Ex-Soviet interviews provide a window into how "the entire body of Soviet youth was ready to rise in revolt against the communist system at the first opportunity". For instance, the views of their grandparents were still based on antiquated Tsarist principles; as a result, there can be a conflict between religious convictions and the communist ideology propagated in the educational system. The opposition to collectivization, all the suffering faced without tangible rewards, and religious beliefs led to some skepticism regarding the system, which could not be eliminated by propaganda. Therefore, one cannot argue that the manipulation of youth during that time was successful because the image of the Soviet Youth seems to be less orthodox after all, at least internally.

The manipulation of young people was also important for preserving the ideology for future generations, instilling group obedience and revolutionary behavior, aiding in the denunciation and eradication of the opposition, and obtaining volunteer support for industrialization or collectivization via the Youth Leagues. As was mentioned, this approach by itself would not have been effective without the use of other oppressive measures. The youth were obedient, according to some testimony, but other explanations to the contrary explain how it was simple for them to revolt against the government. Youth indoctrination was a crucial strategy for the transition to the communist system, though.

Through this examination, I undoubtedly received significant insight into the historical research techniques employed and, consequently, the potential difficulties that may develop during the procedure. I learned from this that a historian should consider the data as a puzzle piece. To put all of those pieces together and create a meaningful portrayal of the past, which frequently has gaps and is therefore imperfect, requires imagination. As part of the research process, original sources were analyzed, propaganda posters were looked into, books and monographs by various historians were read, various points of view were presented, and publications in Russian were also looked into.

Interviews were one of the key sources that gave important information into how people from the USSR saw the success of manipulating adolescents differently. Even if eyewitness accounts are not always trustworthy, by doing more interviews that concur, one might develop a generalized opinion about the subject. Learning the themes from Lenin's speech also presented a challenge because it required reading between the lines, seeing the speech in Russian, and deciphering the speech's underlying message. A historian also benefits from being able to speak various languages because understanding Russian freed me from being constrained by translations of primary sources. Although there may be a problem with source dependability, one restriction of the primary sources from the USSR is that they were frequently changed throughout the years of Stalin's tyranny in order to rewrite history. As a result of coming from a post-Soviet nation, I was also unable to rely on the information I had learned in school about this subject and instead had to try to understand it for myself.

Finally, unlike in science, we are unable to precisely measure the degree to which the communist dictatorship is maintained by manipulating young people. However, by examining their intended function and the popularity of the youth leagues, we can get the conclusion that the control of youth is important for the changeover to a new government. Overall, the knowledge gained from this subject can highlight the issue that manipulating youngsters can be an oppressive tactic used by authoritarian authorities to promote and sustain their ideology, not only in the past but also in today's society.