Bolshevism, the Woman Question, and Aleksandra Kollontai

Author(s): Beatrice Brodsky Farnsworth

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 81, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 292-316
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the American Historical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1851172 .
Accessed: 26/07/2012 21:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Bolshevism,the Woman Question,

and AleksandraKollontai
BEATRICE BRODSKY FARNSWORTH

THE UTOPIAN SOCIALIST, Charles Fourier,believedthatthe emancipationof

womenwas the bestgeneralmeasureofthe morallevelofa culture,thatthe
degreeoffeminine
emancipationwas a naturalmeasureofgeneralemancipation.Karl Marx likedto quote Fourier.So did Old Bolsheviks.1
The Russian intelligentsia
had long been absorbed withthe problemsof
two oppressedgroups:womenand peasants. And as the relationshipofthe
backwardpeasantryto theBolshevikrevolution
underwent
tortuousanalysis,
a source of bitterfactionalism,
finallyto become by the mid-twenties
the
"woman question"seemedone ofthefewissueson whichpartyleaders,Left
and Right,agreed.
I would arguethatitwas an unfortunate
consensus,derivingin partfroma
in partfroma limitedunderstanding
superficial
oftheproblem,
commitment,
so that at a criticaltime when the regimewas takingform,the woman
questionmovednot in the directionofa socialistsolution,but rathertoward
conversionto revolutionary
myth.Only one leading Bolshevik,Aleksandra
Kollontai,thecentralfigurein thesocialistwoman'smovement,
foughtsinglemindedlyforthesocialistcourse.But bythemid-twenties,
havingestablished
herselfas an oppositionist,
shewas isolatedfromdecisionmaking.This article
will suggestthather capitulation
to Stalinin 1927 endedthe mostseriousatto treatthewomanquestionon thebasisofsocialisttheory.
temptofbolshevism

REVOLUTIONS GENERATE MYTHS. One is the assumptionthat the Russian

socialistswere,fromprerevolutionary
to workingfor
days,activelycommitted
theliberationofwomen.In fact,insofaras we can speakofa singleattitudefor
so factionalizeda groupas the Social Democrats,theoppositewas true.The
This articleis based on a paper presentedat the annual meetingof the AmericanHistoricalAssociation,San Francisco,December 29, 1973.I wish to thankthe National Endowmentforthe Humanities,
the AmericanPhilosophicalSociety,and Wells College forfundsto facilitateresearch.I would arsolike
to thankBertramD. Wolfe,Sheila Fitzpatrick,RobertDaniels, StephenF. Cohen, and Charles Duval
forhelpfulcriticismand suggestionsand PhyllisAndrewsforlocatingmaterials.
' CharlesFouriercontendedthat"the development
ofa givenhistoricalepoch is bestofall definedbythe
relationbetweentheprogressofwomenand freedom,
sincein therelationsbetweenwomanand man,the
weak and the strong,is mostclearlyexpressedthevictoryofhuman natureoverbestiality.The degreeof
" Fourier,cited by Marx, as
feminineemancipationis a naturalmeasureof the generalemancipation.
quoted in David Riazanov, "Marks i Engels o brake i seme" [Marx and Engels on Marriage and the
292

theWomanQuestion,
and Aleksandra
Bolshevism,
Kollontai

293

liberationof women,part of the ideologicalequipmentthat the Russians

inheritedfroma morehumanistic,WesternEuropean tradition,was a concept theyresistedadoptingas a goal.
The reluctanceof Russian Marxiststo pledge themselvesto solvingthe
womanquestionwas farfromevidentto Kollontai;she came fromtheupperwomenand joined the
class backgroundcommonto Russian revolutionary
party in i898 chieflybecause she believedsocialism the surestmeans to
achieve women's liberation.2Only in the era of the Revolutionof 1905 did
Kollontai begin to sense that her original perceptionshad been overCommitteeoftheSocial Democratic
optimistic.She remindedthePetersburg
partythattheymustgivemoreattentionin theirprogramto the miserable
livesofRussianworkingwomen.The partywas losingwomenfromtheranks
to the impressively
ofthe studentsand the intelligentsia
organizedbourgeois
and it needed as a counterbalancea base among the proletariat.
feminists,
The socialistsrejectedbothKollontai'sidea fora specialbureau in theparty
thatwould devisewaysto reachwomenand hersuggestionthattheyinclude
in theiraims the liberationofwomen.Findingherself"completelyisolated"
in her ideas and demands,Kollontairealizedforthefirsttimehow littlethe
Social Democraticpartyin Russia was concernedwiththefateofthewomen
of the workingclass, "how meagrewas its interestin women'sliberation."3
What lay behindthisnegativism?
The Russianworkingwoman,thebabaso
backward an element in society,seemed an unlikelyrecruitto a secret
political party,an inappropriatecomrade. But the PetersburgCommittee
objected to Kollontai's ideas chieflybecause theysaw in them the diversionarydanger of feminism.Althoughan alliance betweensocialism and
feminismis referredto as one of the most enduringof nineteenth-century
intellectualbonds,it was trueonlyinsofaras feminism
was definedlooselyto
mean the equalityof womenand theirincorporation
intothe mainstreamof
public life.4Withthe development
ofMarxismas a politicalmovement,
later
in the nineteenth
century,theterm"feminism"became suspectin European
socialistparties. It impliednot simplyequalityforwomenbut a union of
womenas a separategroup,linkedby bonds thattranscendedthoseofclass.
This was, of course,deviantthinking,the mere suggestionof whichmade
Marxists uneasy. Specific clauses concerningwomen and separate institutions,
whetherbureaus in the partyor workingwomen'sclubs,held for
themthethreatofdividingtheworkingclass. ThereforetheSocial Democrats
preferred
thattheliberationofwomenbe treatednotas a specific,revolutionary goal but ratheras an eventualresultofthe class struggle.
Both wingsofthe Social Democraticparty,Mensheviksas well as BolsheFamily],Letopisi
Marksizma[Chroniclesof Marxism],1927,no. 3, p. 21; Trotskymakesthesame observationin Pravda[Truth],Dec. 17, I925.
2A. M. Itkina,Revoliulsioner,
Tribun,Diplomat:Stranitsy
ZhizniAleksandry
Mikhailovny
Kollontai[Revolutionary,Tribune,Diplomat: Pages in theLifeofAleksandraMikhailovnaKollontai](Moscow, 1970),44.
3 A. M. Kollontai,TheAutobiography
ofa Sexually
Communist
tr.SalvatorAttanasio,ed.
Emancipated
Woman,
IringFetscher(New York, 1971), 13-14.
'See, forexample,MartinMalia, Alexander
(New York, 1965), 266,
HerzenandtheBirthofRussianSocialism
and Simone de Beauvoir,TheSecondSex (New York, 1953), 112, 126.

294

BeatriceBrodsky
Farnsworth

viks,male and female,tendedto sharethisview:thuswhenVera Zasulich,the

returnedto Russia afterthe upheaval of 1905, she
veteranrevolutionary,
rejectedKollontai'srequestforhelpin devisingwaysto reachwomen.To find
the usually warm and expansiveZasulich theiropponent,insteadof their
aide, distressedKollontai and the small group she had recruited-among
themthe workingwoman,Klavdiia Nikolaeva,latera prominentBolshevik.
But theyproceededevenwithoutthe olderwoman's supportto establishon
withneithersocialistfaction,itwas
theirown a legal women'sclub. Affiliated
Mutual
for
the
deceptivelynamed the Society
Help of WorkingWomen.
Zasulichcame to theclub one eveningnot,as Kollontaihoped,to rejoiceat its
success but to condemn it as a "superfluousenterprise"that dividedthe
ofthe socialistparty.5
strength
The woman questionbroughtKollontaito Marxism-otherscame to the
richlydiversemovementby equallyidiosyncratic
paths-but in no sensewas
From I906 to I908, whenshe fledintoexileto escape
she a politicalfeminist.
the Russian police who were pursuingher forrevolutionary
agitation,Kolwhom she attackedin a
lontai was the scourgeof the bourgeoisfeminists,
torrentof polemicalspeeches,articles,and a belligerentfour-hundred-page
book, TheSocialBasesoftheWomanQuestion
(I909). Withrevolutionary
righteousness,she denied the feministpremisethatwomenwere a group apart
bound by special ties; rather,theyweredividedintoclassesjust as menwere.
her argument,Kollontaicontendedthat the femiOccasionally overstating
nists'programofreformwas pitifully
irrelevant
forproletarianwomen,that
despitetheirclaims to be "nonclass" the Russian "Equal Righters,"as she
called the Union forWomen'sEquality,remainedbourgeois.Determinedto
establisha basic truth,Kollontai portrayedthe woman question not as a
matterofpoliticalliberationor social reform,
but symbolically
as a "piece of
which
meant
for
women
that
to be trulyfreetheyhad to be economibread,"
The heart of the matter,whichfeminists
cally independent.6
in Russia ignored,was the domesticand maritalsituation.How could independencebe
possible forwomen of the workingclass unless the familyceased to be a
so unrealisticas to believethatthe
closed,individualunit?Werethefeminists
class state,howeverdemocratically
contemporary
structured,
would takeon
itselfall theobligationsrelatingto maternity
and childcare thatwerefulfilled
by the individualfamily?Kollontaiinsistedthatonlysocialistscould create
the conditionswhichin turncould freethe "new woman."
in
What Kollontaidid not revealto the Equal Righterswas herdifficulty
convincingeitherBolsheviksor Mensheviks,as she movedbetweenthesetwo
factions,to includethe woman questionin its goals. The Social Democratic
as theyviewedwithunease
partycontinuedto suspectKollontaioffeminism
5Kollontai, "Avtobiograficheskii
Ocherk" [AutobiographicalSketch], Proletarskaia
Revoliutsiia
[ProletarianRevolution],i921,no. 3, p. 275.
6 Kollontai,Sotsial'nye
Osnovy
Voprosa[Social Bases of the Woman Question] (St. Petersburg,
Zhenskogo
groupsin
1909), 34. The Union forWomen's Equalitywas the mostsuccessfulofthe bourgeoisfeminist
see
termsoforganizationand broad appeal. For a discussionof Russian feminism
priorto therevolution,
SlavicStudies,
RichardStites,"Women's LiberationMovementsin Russia, 1900-1930," Canadian-American
7
(1973): 460-74.

and Aleksandra
theWomanQuestion,
Kollontai
Bolshevism,

295

her penchantto concentrateon the problemsof women,an emphasisthat

theoretically
theyneed nothavefeared,ifthesituationofwomen,ratherthan
being divisive,was to serve as a measure of the moral level of a newly
structuredsociety.7
Only in I917 when Kollontai was at the peak of her popularityas a
revolutionary,
havingofficially
joined the Bolsheviksin 1915 and been elected
to theirCentralCommitteeat the SixthPartyCongressa fewmonthsbefore
the Revolution,was she able to establisha women'sbureau in the Bolshevik
party.By thenshe had acquired powerfulallies: Lenin and Iakov Sverdlov,
who was later chairmanof the CentralExecutiveCommitteeof the Soviet.
NlostoftheunhappyencountersbetweenKollontaiand theRussiansocialists
had takenplace beforethe Revolutionwith Lenin farfromthe scene. Yet
thereare indicationsthatat leastinitiallyshe questionedLenin'scommitment
to thewomanquestion.In the springof I914, whilepreparingfora proposed
meetingin Augustof the Socialist Internationalin Vienna whereshe was
scheduledto reportto theWomen'sCongress,Kollontailearnedin confidence
thatthemandatesofMenshevikdelegatesto theWomen'sCongresswouldbe
contestedby the Bolsheviks.To Menshevikleaderssheexpressedindignation
at the maneuvering
ofthe Bolshevikswho in herviewhad neverbeforebeen
interestedin the women'smovement-afterall she had been participating
in
theseinternational
meetingsforyears-but whowerenowtryingto dominate
thegroup.8A revealingcharge,forwhenone criticizedtheBolsheviksin 1914,
one meantLenin,the undisputedleader ofthe faction.
Kollontaitook a proprietary
attitudetowardthe Russian women'smovement,understandablein viewof her earlierisolation,but somewhatunfair.
Amongthe Bolsheviksin exile were Krupskaia,Lenin's wife,and her close
partycomrades,LudmillaStael, Zinaida Lilina,and Inessa Armand,women
who shared Kollontai's commitment
ifnot her single-minded
intensity.9
As
forLenin,his concernwas notquiteso sudden,or opportunistic,
as Kollontai
suspected.While Lenin possessedthatfeelforreality,thatmarveloussensitivity
to thedemandsofthetime,whichpromptedhimnowand thento adopt
new tactics,his interestin thewomanquestionhad its sourcein an intuitive
knowledgethat forthe revolutionto succeed womenhad to supportit,that
women,themostbackwardelementofRussiansociety,could bestbe reached
by specially designed measures. If for him women's problemswere not
primary,but subordinateto the largergoal of revolution,
theyweredear to
theheartsofthewomenclosestto him:hisfriendArmand,firstdirectorofthe
women's section of the party in I919, and his wife,editorof its journal,
I

Typical ofKollontai'sprerevolutionary
writingwas heressay,"Novaia Zhenshchina"[New Woman],

Sovremennyi
Mir [Contemporary
World], 1913, no. 9, pp.

151-85.

8LettersfromKollontaito Semen Semkovskii,Boris NikolaevskyArchive,Hoover Library,Stanford,

" 'Lady in Red': A StudyoftheEarlyCareerofA. M. Kollontai"
California,as quoted in M. H. Pertsoff,
(Ph.D. dissertation,University
of Virginia,1968),42.
9Zinaida Lilina was marriedto GrigoryZinoviev,Lenin'schieflieutenantin theseyearsofexile.As for
Inessa Armand,anotherOld Bolshevik,it has been suggestedthatLeninwas deeplyin lovewithher.For
contrasting
interpretations
ofthisalleged relationship,
see BertramWolfe,"Lenin and Inessa Armand,"
SlavicReview,
22 (1963): 96-1 14,and Adam Ulanm,
TheBolsheviks
(New York, 1968),284-85.

296

Beatrice
Farnsworth
Brodsky

Kommunistka.
It was Armand who urged in I914 that propaganda workbe
widely developed among the women workersand that a special women
workers'magazinebe publishedin Petersburg.
Leninwroteto hissisterAnna
withthis idea, and Rabotnitsa
resulted."0
Aftertherevolution,
Leninsoughtin 1920 to explainwhytherewereso few
womenin thepartyand pointedto theparty'spastpolicyofrejectingseparate
bodies for work among the masses of women. Adoptingas his own the
argumentKollontai had been advancingsince I906 and separatinghimself
fromtheparty'snarrowview,Lenininsistedthattheremustbe commissions,
partybureaus,whose particulardutyit was to arouse the masses ofwomen
workers,peasantsand pettybourgeois,to bringthemunderpartyinfluence.
What he was advocating,he explained,was not bourgeoisfeminism,
it was
insteadrevolutionary
expediency."
IfSverdlovseemedan unlikelyallyas head oftheparty'sSecretariat,
staffed
primarilyby women,he understoodwomen's subordinatestatus.Anatoly
theanimatedand generouscommissarofeducation,considered
Lunacharsky,
that Sverdlovwas "like ice. . . . somehowfaceless."'12But this same man
respondedwith warm compassion to Kollontai's plea that the Bolsheviks
committhemselvesto bringingwomenintothe party.Sverdlovhelped Kollontaiwin acceptancefora women'sbureau,and he became so vitalto her
workamongwomenthatupon hisdeathin I9I 9 Kollontaiwrotean emotional
piece tellingthe workingwomenof Russia that withthe death of Sverdlov
theyhad lost a comradewho was among theirfewconvinceddefenders,a
comradewho reallyunderstoodtheneedforpoliticalworkamongwomenand
whosedeath meantspecial grieffortheirmovement.13
Had Sverdlovlived,had Lenin notbecomeincapacitated,
wouldthewoman
questionhave been resolvedin a different
way?Amongthe Bolsheviksthere
was only one otherleader, Leon Trotsky,whomKollontaipraised equally
with Lenin and Sverdlovforhis workon behalfof women.'4Their initial
supportwas invaluable.A measureof it was the party'spledge in its new
programat the EighthCongressin I919 to replacethe individualhousehold
withcommunalfacilitiesforeating,laundry,and maternaland child care.
Kollontaibelievedshe had scoredanothertriumphforthe movementwhen,
despiteopposition,she was able to geta resolutionpassed at theEighthCongress concerningthe need for the partyto workmore specificallyamong
womento draw themin as activemembers.But withintwo years she was
harshlycriticalof the party'sfailureto implementits decision to include
womenin areas ofcommunistleadership.'5Zhenotdel.thewomen'ssection.
10 Clara Zetkin,Reminiscences
ofLenin(New York, 1934),53; N. K. Krupskaia,Reminiscences
ofLenin,tr.
BernardIsaacs (New York, 1970),269-70.
" Zetkin,Reminiscences,
53.
"A. V. Lunacharsky,
tr.MichaelGlenny(New York, 1967),107.
Revolutionary
Silhouettes,
3 Kollontai,"Kogo PoterialiRabotnitsy?"[Whom Did the WorkingWomen Lose?], in Kollontai,
Izbrannye
Stat'ii Rechi[CollectedArticlesand Speeches],ed. I. M. Dazhina etal. (Moscow, 1972), 266-67.
14 Kollontai,Autobiography,
42.
15 Kollontai,"Avtobiograficheskii
Ocherk," 301. For Kollontai's criticismof the party,see her "Profsoiuzyi Rabotnitsa" [Trade Unionsand WorkingWomen],Pravda,May 22, 1921, reprintedin Kollontai,
Izbrannye
Stat'ii Rechi,319.

17PoflrriJP~fJf
9a'rc'.qf

fCoQ ';

^-

-fs

-I~~~~~~~~I

45

mumi

-'__s

_S _

IUIfB
s<=

WXM'

TANN

..
.W
.~~~~~~
~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IF-

withpictureof Lenin.
Fig. i. Title page ofRaboiniLsa

Fig. 2. KollontaiaddressingSecond InternationalConferenceof CommunistWomen,June 1921. From

A. M. Kollontai,Iz MoeiZhiznii Raboty[FromMy Lifeand Work],ed. I. M. Dazhina etal. (Moscow, 1974).

theWomanQuestion,
and Aleksandra
Bolshevism,
Kollontai

299

in I919 as a partofthe CentralCommittee,

whichwas establishedofficially
was neverable to overcometheforcesthatregardeditsworkwithindifference
or hostility.'6
Sophia Smidovich,an Old Bolshevikwho headed the Moscow
Regional Women's Section until she replaced Kollontai as directorof the
centralZhenotdelin 1922, describedthesituation.The efforts
ofZhenotdelto
raise socialistconsciousnessamong womenwere provingexpedient,but the
partywas failingto help.The fewqualifiedand trainedworkersassignedto it
wereregardedwithcontemptby partycomrades.Smidovichputthequestion
thepartymustsay so; if
directly:ifZhenotdelwas notregardedas necessary,
itwas needed,thenqualifiedworkershad to be provided.It wouldbe betterto
liquidatethe departmentthanto allow it to dragout itsmiserableexistence.
Her dismal appraisal was sharedby anotherOld Bolshevik,ViktorNogin,
who in his reportto the EleventhPartyCongresscalled attentionto the
condescension,the abnormal, unhealthyattitudestoward Zhenotdelthat
caused its membersto feelunequal.'7 But V. M. Molotov,a memberofthe
Central Committeeand one of the threepartysecretaries,observedthat
Zhenotdel'sdifficulties
weredue to itslack ofa real leader.This colorlessbut
methodicalfunctionary,
who was to rise to the highestpositionsas Stalin's
right-hand
man,impliedthatthetroublelay notin partyattitudesbut in the
poor organizationestablishedby its previousdirectors,
eitherArmand,who
died in 1920, or perhapsKollontai,whowas hersuccessor.'8Kollontaiwas an
ideal scapegoat.Having fallenfromfavor,she was alreadyunderfireat the
EleventhCongress,which was tryingunsuccessfully
to expel her fromthe
partyforher role as a leader in yetanotherunhappycause, the Workers'
Opposition.9
a turningpoint.The Bolshevikparty,having
committeditselfin IgIg withsome reluctanceto solvingthewomanquestion,
foundthat its New Economic Policy (NEP) adopted in IQ21 was in conflict

WE COME TO THE MID-TWENTIES,

16Zhenotdeldevelopedthroughseveralstages,the firstbeingthe Women's Bureau establishedin 1917.

From the outsetthe workof the bureau was directedby Kollontai,Armand,and Kollontai's protege,
Varvara Moirova,whojoined the Bolsheviksin 1917. In 1918 Sverdlovhelped in creatingcommissionsfor
agitationand propagandaamongworkingwomenforthe purposeofhelpingto attractnonpartyworking
women.See E. Bochkarevaand SerafimaLiubimova,Svetlyi
Put[The BrightPath] (Moscow, 1967), 81. In
the autumnof 1919thepartyreorganizedthecommissionsintoa formalsectionoftheCentralCommittee
known as the Zhenotdel. A networkof women's sections were attached to each of the local party
committees,
extendingfromthecenterin Moscow intocityand provincialdistricts.For a fulldiscussionof
the Zhenotdel,see RichardStites,"Zhenotdel: 1917-1930," typescript.
Also see BetteStavrakis,"Women
and theCommunistPartyin theSovietUnion, 1918-1935" (Ph.D. dissertation,
WesternReserveUniversity,
961), 79-168.
17 Odinnadtsatyi
S"ezd RKP (b): Mart-Aprel'I922 g [EleventhCongress,BolshevikParty:March-April
(Moscow, 1961), 456-57,67.
1922]
18 Ibid., 58. For an idea of the organizationalworkof the women's sectionunder Kollontai,see her
v Sovetskoi
Rabotnitsa
t Krestianka
Rossii[The WorkingWoman and the Peasant Woman in SovietRussiaj
(Petrograd,1921).
'9The Workers'Opposition was a group based on the idea of trade-unionleadershipin industry.
Organized in 1920, it triedto resistthe centralizingtrendof Sovietpolitics.Its leaderswere Alexander
Shliapnikov,SergeiMedvedev,and Kollontai.As an LTItra-Left
a
idealist,Kollontaiadded to themovement
protestagainstthe stifling
ofcriticismwithinthe partyand the failureofthe regimeto improvetheliving
conditionsofthe proletariat.This movementwas crushedby the partyleadershipin 1922.

300

Beatrice
Brodsky
Farnsworth

withitssocial obligations.NikolaiBukharin,earliera leaderoftheradicalleft

wing of the party,but now an exponentof the moremoderatepace of the
regime,statedit bluntlyin theBolsheviknewspaper,Pravda:theofficial
party
The end oflaborconscription,
programof I9I9 was outdatedand irrelevant.20
the rise in unemployment
resultingfromthe partial restorationof private
enterpriseunderNEP, meantthatthe numberofwomenunableto findwork
the government
and dependentnow on men had increased.Simultaneously
reduced its investmentin child care. A resolutionofferedat a conference
woman'sworkin I922 spokeofNEP's "catastrophiceffect"on the
concerning
workbeing done among mothers.For example,the numberof homes for
mothersand childrenfellsharplyafter1922. Articlesin Kommunistka
reflected
the sense of alarm among workersin social institutions,
like nurseries,that
underNEP did not knowhow much longertheywould exist.21
For the hundredsof thousandsof unemployedwomen,livingin defacto
marriagesor neglectingto registerpost-1917churchmarriages,thesituation
was potentiallyperilous.Should theirhusbandsleave them,theywould be
withoutmeans of support.The party,facedwitha criticalfamilysituation,
had to deal withthefundamental
questionplaguingit in thetwenties:would
it presenta forward-looking
solutionto demonstratethat Soviet Russia,
despitethe NEP, was movingtowardsocialism?
In October 1925 the partyreactedinsteadby introducing
to the nominal
governing
organ,theAll RussianCentralExecutiveCommittee,
a newfamily
code, whichincreasednot society'sbut theindividual'seconomicobligations
by making unregisteredmarriageslegal. The purpose, the commissarof
justice,DmitriKursky,explained,was to safeguardwomenbyextendingto de
factowivestheexistingrightto receivealimony.To protectwomenfurther,
the
added to the originalfamilylaw, by whicha destitutespouse
government
unableto workhad beenentitledto a husband'ssupport,therightto alimony
"duringunemployment."22
Attitudes,traditionaland personal,surfacedin oppositionto the newlaw:
peasantsfearedthatthe expansionofalimonymeanta threatto theirproperty,23women and men looked suspiciouslyat each other,and even in the
? Pravda,
Jan. 25, 1923.

Sophia Smidovich,"O novomkodeksezakonovo brake i sem'e" [About the New Code of Laws
ConcerningMarriageand the Family],Kommunistka
[The CommunistWoman], 1926,no. 1, p. 47, and
Smidovich,"Nashi zadachi v oblasti pereustroistva
byta" [Our Tasks in the Area of Reconstruction
of
Daily Life],ibid.,no. 12, pp. 18-20; see, forexample,Moirova,"Obshchestvennoepitaniei bytrabochei
sem'i" [Public Feedingand the Way of Lifeofthe WorkingFamily],ibid.,no. 10-l l, p. 45.
22 In thewordingofthelegislation
theterm"spouse" was used,butKurskystressedthatthepurposeof
thelaw was to protectwomen.Childrenwerealreadysafeguardedbytheoriginalcode insofaras theyhad a
rightto parentalsupportirrespective
ofwhetherthemarriagewas registered.
Now withthenewlegislation
theyhad increasedprotection.Kurskyas quoted in "Discussion of the Draftof the Code," in Rudolf
Schlesinger,ed., TheFamilyin theU.S.S.R. (London, 1949),85,a usefulcollectionofprimarysources(now
out ofprint)containingreprintsofSovietdebatesand pressarticles.Althoughin theWest itwas said that
the new code was intendedas a Bolshevikattackon legal marriage,Kursky'saide, Ia. Brandenburgskii,
indignantly
repliedthatthelaw was promulgatedout ofconcernforthepotentially
abandonedmotherand
child and therefore
encouragedmaritalresponsibility.
[The News],Jan. 14,1926.In 1944thelaw
Izvestiya
was changed,and onlyregisteredmarriagewas made legallybinding.
23 UnderNEP theprivatepeasant farms
wereencouragedto existand to contribute
to economicrevival.
The peasant,unliketheproletarianworker,livedin an extendedhousehold,thedvor,in whichall members
21

and Aleksandra
Bolshevism,
theWomanQuestion,
Kollontai

30I

partyopponentsbattledthe proposedchanges.Aaron Sol'ts of the Central

moraland doctrinal
ControlCommission,the bodyresponsibleforenforcing
standardsin the party,pleased manyurban men whenhe arguedthatonly
registeredmarriagesshould carrymaterialconsequences; but Sol'ts, who
fearedthat women mightbe wronglyencouragedby the new law to enter
stricter
sexual relationshipsin orderto get alimony,had in mindenforcing
The most
againstlaw suits.24
morality,
whilethetownsmensoughtprotection
controversial
featureofthe law-recognitionof defactomarriage-createda
in
of
demand the CentralExecutiveCommitteefora moreprecisedefinition
marriage,since no one intendedthat casual relationshipsshould entitle
ofdefiningmarriagewas suggestedby the
womento alimony.The difficulty
deputycommissarofjustice,Nikolai Krylenko,in his pragmaticviewaftera
yearofdiscussion,thatifconfusionstillremainedas to whatmarriagewas it
a
mightbe best to discardthe officialdefinition-thefactoflivingtogether,
ofsuch to a thirdparty-and letthe
joint household,and the announcement
courtsdecide.25
Bolsheviksfromleftto rightargued overdetails,but the party'sultimate
purpose,the decisionto protectwomenas the weakermembersofsocietyby
means of alimony,remainedunquestioned.In the middleof the nineteenth
century,J. S. Mill had analyzed women'ssubjectionand pointedout that
the questionwas not what marriageoughtto be, but a farwiderquestion,
what womenoughtto be.26Settlethatfirst,the otherwillsettleitself.Yet in
1925, amongprominent
Bolsheviks,onlyKollontaipubliclydeclaredthatthe
was notdealingin a meaningful
waywiththewomanquestion.
government
to expel Kollontaifromthe
The CentralCommitteehad failedin its effort
isolated
butshe had been effectively
partyin 1922 on groundsoffactionalism,
by being sent withotherdissidentsinto diplomatic"exile." The partyassignedherto a postin Norway,whereshe quicklyweariedofdiplomaticlife.
in theWorkers'OpposiDisheartenedadditionallybythefailureofherefforts
tionmovementto establishgenuineproletariancontrolin theworkers'state,
or to restoreto the partythe rightto open protest,the idealisticKollontai
sharedin thefamilyeconomy.Ifone memberofthehousehold,perhapsa youngson,fathereda childand
thenseparatedfromthe womanto whomhe had been married,thealimonyexactedfromhim-it might
be a cow to help feedthe child-meant a loss to the entirehouseholdsince theyall livedtogether.For
peasantprotestsalongthisline,see excerptsfromthediscussionofthemarriagecode in theSecondSession
oftheCentralExecutiveCommitteeoftheRSFSR, October 1925,as reprintedin "DiscussionoftheDraft
Stateii
discussionof the new marriagecode, see Braki Sem'ia:Sbornik
of the Code," 107-08. For further
MolodataGvardiia[Marriageand the Family:CollectedArticlesand Materials,Young Guard]
Materialov,
(Moscow, 1926), 3-162.

24 For report
Nov. 17, 1925. Another
ofa debatebetweenAaronSol 'tsand NikolaiKrylenko,seeIzvestiya,
reason cited by those favoringrecognitiononly of registeredmarriagewas that to do otherwisewould
whereunregistered
marriagewas
encouragechurchmarriage,unrecognizedsince 1918.In thecountryside,
seen as debauchery,opinionwas said to be againstthenewproposal.Kursky,however,in a speechcarried
ofdefacto
Nov. 1926,reportedthatyoungpeople in the villageswerefavoringthe recognition
in Izvestiya,
FamilyintheU.S.S.R., 125-26. In a speechto thewomen'ssectionofthe
marriage.Reprintedin Schlesinger,
party,Krylenkoclaimed that the regimehad not anticipatedthe oppositionthe new law met.Jessica

inSoviet
Russia(NewYork,1928),
Smith,Woman

109.

Krylenkoas quoted in "DiscussionoftheDraftoftheCode," 93, 112.

26JohnStuartMill, "Early Essays on Marriageand Divorce,"in Mill and HarrietTaylorMill,Essayson
Sex Equality,ed. Alice Rossi (Chicago, 1971),73.
25

302

Beatrice
Brodsky
Farnsworth

resignedher diplomaticpositionand in 1925 contemplateda break with

who servedwithherin theembassydisagreed
bolshevism.Whileclose friends
as to the seriousnessof her intentionto leave the party,withMarcel Body
advancing the theoryand anotherfrienddenyingit, it seems a possible
explanationforKollontai'srashpoliticalactionin thewinterof I925-26 when
she returnedbrieflyto Moscow.27If she failed,she would break with the
regime.

Studies of the oppositionmovementby Westernhistorianssuggestthat

Kollontaihad abandonedprotestby 1925, but thefactsare otherwise.
Upholdoutlookof 19I7 as thoughshe had been neither
ing the revolutionary-heroic
censurednorexiled,Kollontaiplungedat theend of 1925 intowhatwould be
domestic
defunctrevolutionary
herlast strugglein behalfofthe nowvirtually
overlookedby historiansbecause ofitssingularly
programof IgIg. Her effort,
independentnature-and its distance fromthe issues of the male power
struggle-centeredon oppositionto thegovernment's
projectednewmarriage
code.
Kollontai's analysis ran counterto the gloomyfears of workersin the
women'ssectionthatwiththe adoptionofNEP the possibilityof a socialist
lost.Kollontaibelieved
solutionto thewomanquestionhad been irrevocably
of the economyunder
of
sector
ratherthatcontinuedexpansion the private
for
the NEP would mean an eventualincreasein employment
opportunities
womenand thatgrowinggovernment
resourceswould make possiblefurther
investment
in public facilitiesthat would replacethe individualhousehold.
a counterproposal,
Beforeoffering
it was necessaryfirstto explainwhythe
regime'snew familylaw was unacceptable in a societypurportingto be
socialist.She argued that ratherthan being a step forward,the proposal
revealedthe party'sfailure,aftereightyearsin power,to evolvea socialist
familypolicy: the governmentwould be creatingcategoriesof womenregistered,
unregistered,
and casual-and sincethe firsttwowerenow made
equal in theirrights,thethirdwas necessarilydeprived.The womenthenew
law refusedto defendwere but peasant girlsgoingto the cityforworkand
workinggirlslivingin factories
and shopsin conditionsoffrightful
congestion.
Registeredand unregistered
wives,on theotherhand,werebeingencouraged
to abase themselvesin court,beggingfortheirlegal sop froman unwilling
man,probablytoo poor to pay.28She scoffedat thepointlessness
ofsocialists
definingmarriageor seekingto strengthen
it by legislation,as if by such
means abandoned, unemployedwomen could be aided. In an approach
radicallydifferent
fromthatofthosewho agreedthatalimonyhad failedbut
argued helplesslythat the courtsmustfindways to enforcepayment,Kollontai insistedthat women who servedsocietyby providingit withfuture
workersdeservedcollectivesupport.Priorto NEP, Kollontaihad proposed
government
protection
formothersin theformofstatesubsidies.29
Discarding
27 For Marcel Body's view,see his article,"AlexandraKollontai,"Preuves,
1952, supp. no. 14,pp. 17-19.
Anotherclose frienddoes notbelieveBody'scontention
thatKollontaiwishedto leavetheparty.Interview
witha long-timefriendof Kollontai's,Aug. 24, 1973,Moscow.
28 Kollontai,"Brak i byt" [Marriageand Daily Life],Rabochzi
Sud tWorkers'Court], 1926,no. 5, p. 371.
29
Kollontai,Sotsial'nye
Osnovy
Voprosa,
230.
Zhenskogo

Bolshevism,
theWomanQuestion,
and Aleksandra
Kollontai

303

theidea ofdirectstateaid, Kollontairespondedto theslowerpace ofNEP by

proposingto abolishalimonyand to createinsteada GeneralInsuranceFund
to whichthe entireworkingadult populationwould contributeon a graduated scale,thelowestcontribution
beingtworublesa year.Withsixtymillion
one could count on an initialsum of one hundredand
adult contributors
twentymillionrubles,whichwouldmakeit possibleto provideforthecostof
children'screchesand homes,homesformothersin need, supportto single
mothersunable to workand fortheirchildrenat least untiltheywerea year
old, later,accordingto thesize ofthefund,untiltheywerethreeor four.30
Soviet societywas poor, but its economic growthin the mid-twenties
was
increasingat an impressive
rateso thatwithintwoor threeyearstheGeneral
InsuranceF;undwould no longerbe a burden.
fromtheromanticsocialismof
Kollontai'sidiosyncratic
proposal,springing
1917 and the revolutionary
era, was rejectedby all but her own small group
and youthfulstudents;theyinvariablyrespondedto Kollontai'soptimistic
theories,whichkept alive hope that revolutionstill lived in Soviet Russia.
"For us youngcommunistwomen,"a partyworkerrecalled,"Kollontaiwas
a loftyexample of a revolutionary
and we aspired to imitateher."
fighter,
in
Writing Komsomolskaia
Pravda,the newspaperforpartyyouth,a student
who claimedthatmoststudentssupportedKollontaisuggested,as a temporarymeans ofstrengthening
the GeneralFund, a five-kopek
tax on bottlesof
wine,theatertickets,and otheramusements.3'
Kollontai'sright-wing
criticsimpliedthatreplacingalimonywithan insurance fundwas unfairto thepeasantmajoritywho,hostileto thetowns,would
neverwillinglypay an extratax to benefitcitywomenand children,whileto
compelpaymentwould run counterto the new economicpolicyoflessening
burdenson the peasantry.This argumentwas inconsistent
since it was the
peasantswho opposed as immoraland a threatto theirproperty
thegovernment's own proposal to recognizede factomarriages.In urgingincreased
taxation,Kollontai seemed to the Right to be thinkingalong the lines of
the economicspokesmanof the Left,
Trotskyand EvgenyPreobrazhensky,
who arguedforsystematic
pressureon thepeasants.ButtheLeftoppositionists
soughteconomicsupportformorerapid industrialization,
not social experiments,whichTrotsky,speakingnow as a reformist,
regardedas premature.
Trotskyreferred
later-presumablywithKollontaiin mind-to experiments
so radicalthatone would simplyfallon one's faceand be embarrassedbefore
the peasantry.32
Kollontai'scriticsfailedto understandthat,whileseekingwaysto preserve
revolutionary
domesticgoals, she was willingto modifyher positionto work
30 Kollontai,."Obshchii kotelili individual'nyealimenty?"[A Common Pot or IndividualAlimony?],
Komsomolskaia
Pravda[KomsomolTruth), Feb. 2, 1926, p. 2.
31 Partyworker
quotedin Itkina,Revoliutsioner,
203; "Obshchii kotelili individual'nye
alimenty?"(Otkliki
na stat'iu tov. Kollontai) [A Common Pot or IndividualAlimony?Responses to Comrade Kollontai's
Article],Komsomolskaia
Pravda,Mar. 21, 1926, p. 4.
32Leon Trotsky, 'Okhrana materinstvai bor'ba za kul'turu" [Protectionof Motherhoodand the
StruggleforCulture],in Sochineniia
[Works](Moscow, 1927), 21: 49. For Trotsky'sviewthatthetimewas
notyetripeforthought-out
schemes,initiatedfromabove,see his Voprosy
Byta[ProblemsofEverydayLife]
(Moscow, 1923), 46.

304

BeatriceBrodskyFarnsworth

theparty'sofficialideology
contextofBukharinism,
withinthereconciliatory
in theWest,she had come
in the mid-twenties.
Withthefailureofrevolution
to accept Bukharin'sview of the need slowly to build socialism in one
was at thepeak of
country.33
She likedBukharin,whoat theage ofthirty-eight
his politicalinfluenceand whose conceptof a more humane socialismshe
been allies,
shared. In the earlyprerevolutionary
days theyhad frequently
even as theyhad been opponentsduringthe Workers'Oppositioncrisisin
thefirstcommissaroflaborand one ofthe
I92I. WithAlexanderShliapnikov,
fewgenuinelyproletarianleadersoftheparty,Kollontaiwarnedin I921 about
Butthisdid notmeanthat
thedangersof"peasantization"ofthegovernment.
in 1926 she advocatedthe Left'spositionofaccumulatingcapitalforindustrial
it forcibly
fromthe peasant.The Right'scontention
expansionby extracting
that Kollontai'splan to tax the peasant at a rate of two rublesa year ran
counterto government
economicpolicyand resembledthe pressuresof the
Leftwas an absurdexaggeration.Kollontaiwas simplyin linewithBukharin
in advocatingsome "pumpingover"of economicresourcesfromthe peasant
sector.34
For socialismto succeed-as Bukharinnow contended-a long periodof
harmonybetweenpeasantand proletariatwould haveto be established.This
"harmonizing"had consistently
been Kollontai'spurposeas well as thegoal
ofthemuch-scorned
women'ssection,which,sinceitsinception,had worked
to raise the socialistconsciousnessof peasant women. It is true that the
womenwere only part of ruralsociety,but as Lenin explainedearlier,the
SovietUnion could not exercisethe dictatorship
ofthe proletariatunlessthe
womenwerewon over.35
Anotheraspect of Kollontai's proposal, which she saw as a gestureof
supportforpeasantwomen,was herplan formarriagecontractsthatwereto
ofhousewives,bothpeasantand proletarian.By these
safeguardthe interests
a
contracts, coupleenteringintoa maritalunionwould,insteadofregistering,
voluntarilyconclude an agreementin which they would determinetheir
economicresponsibilities
towardeach otherand theirchildren.A somewhat
weak idea, whichat firstglance seems,in its revolutionary
romanticism,
to
deservethe criticismit received,it assumeda herculeaneffort
on the partof
workersfromthe women's sectionwho were somehowto teach backward
peasant womenhow to safeguardtheireconomicinterests.36
Yet it is necessary to keep in mind that Kollontai was thinkingin long-range,socialist
terms,tryingto maintaina sense ofleft-wing
revolutionary
purposewithina
right-wing
evolutionarystructure.
The assumptionon which Kollontai's proposals were based-collective
StephenF. Cohen,Bukharin
andtheBolshevik
Revolution
(New York, 1973),233;Moscow interview.
174.
Cohen,Bukharin
andtheBolshevik
Revolutton,
i Krestianka,
35 See Kollontai,Rabotnitsa
i9; Zetkin,Reminiscences,
53-57.
36 Kollontai,"Brak i byt," 373.Kollontaisuggested
fivemillionbabiesborn
thatoutoftheapproximately
in the SovietUnion each year,perhapsa millionwould notbe providedforby themarriagecontractsand
be in need of governmentsupport.Her marriagecontractidea was called unrealisticby Smidovich,
"Otmenit' li registratsiiu
braka i sistemualimentov"[Whetherto Change Registrationof Marriageand
33

31

and Aleksandra
Kollontai
theWomanQuestion,
Bolshevism,

305

at an increasedsocialist
forthosein need-aimed specifically
responsibility
both
and
Trotsky
arguedthatthestate
proletarian.
among
peasant
awareness
withoutcooperationfromthe masses,
could not build new social institutions
This was a validposition,but how
thatthepeople themselveshad to grow.37
else could socialistawarenessbe createdotherthanbytheparty'sgradualbut
steady introductionof socialist measures? The need for such ideological
persuasionwas underscoredby the reactionto Kollontai'splan as seen in
lettersfromworkingwomen."Comrade Kollontai'stax is altogetherunsatisfactory.... How can anyonespeakofa generaltaxationofall men?Whatis it
ofa child?
to do withall men,whenonlyoneman is concernedin thebegetting
The matteris farsimpler;ifyou are the
What affairis it ofthecommunity?
father,you mustpay! "38
Even Trotsky,curiouslyinsensitiveto the Thermidorianaspects of the
new marriagecode, was indignantat itsopponents:how could
government's
one thinkthatin Sovietsocietyanyonecould be so thickheadedas to denya
mothertherightto helpfromthefathersimplybecause thewomanwas nota
registeredwife;womenneeded all the protectiontheycould get. Describing
thatsociety
Sovietmarriagelegislationas socialistin spirit,Trotskyregretted
lagged so dismallybehind it.39Societydid lag; so, too, did partyleaders.
Trotskyshareda viewof womenthatcaused himto praise as socialistthe
legislationKollontaicondemnedas pettybourgeois.Nor was his perception
moment,Karl Marx filledout a so"un-Marxist."Once, in a lighthearted
called confessionforhis daughterLaura revealinghis strongestpreferences.
He wrotethatthevirtuehe admiredmostin menwas "strength."The virtue
he admiredmostin women?"Weakness."40BothMarx and Engelsbelieved
thatthe weak mustbe protectedfromthe strong.Men mustprotectwomen.
This themeran throughthe debatesoverthe new familycode,jeopardizing
the socialistassumptionthatthe collectiveshouldprovidesocial securityfor
its members.The Bolsheviksbelievedin equalityforwomen,of course,but
criticism,see E. Lavrov,
Pravda,Feb. 14, 1926, p. 2. For further
the Systemof Alimony],Komsomolskaia
"Polovoi vopros i Molodezh' " [The Sexual Problemand Youth], MolodaiaGvardiia[Young Guard],
Mar. 1926,no. 3, p. 145.
" Trotsky,"ProtivProsveshchennogo
[AgainstBuBiurokratizma(A takzhei neprosveshchennogo)"
in Sochineniia,
21: 71-72.
reaucracy,Progressiveand Unprogressive],
38 Quoted in Fannina Halle, Woman
in SovietRussia(London, 1933),123.Anotherletterfroma groupof
workingwomenasked,"Why shoulda desertedmotherbecomea burdenon society?"It urgeda systemof
alimony:"For ifonce a man has succeededin foolinga woman ... thenhe shouldpay.... He willtake
care to avoid anothertime." One factorygroupwrotethatif Comrade Kollontai'stax wereintroduced,
thenmen would lose all shame and universallicensewould be theresult.Ibid., 124, 122. For the Russian
versionoftheseletters,see Braki Sem'ia,143-44.
39Trotsky,"Okhrana materinstvai bor'ba za kul'turu" and "Kul'tura i Sotsializm" [Cultureand
21: 50, 434. Emilian Iaroslavskiiexpressedidenticalviewsin his "Moral' i byt
Socialism],in Soch/ineniia,
proletariatav perekhodnyi
period" [Moralityand Daily Lifeof the Proletariatin the TransitionalEral,
MolodaiaGvardiia,
May 1926,no. 3, pp. 15-151. Supportersofthemarriagelaw likedto pictureitsopponents,
in Krylenko'swords,as Philistines.KrylenkoarguedthatSovietpolicywas movingtowardeconomicand
politicalequalityof the sexes despiteoppositionfromPhilistinesand peasants.Krylenko'sargumentsin
Jan. 15,1926,are
favorofthe new marriagelaw, "Obyvatel' nastupaet"[The PhilistineAdvances],Pravda,
quoted in Trotsky,Sochineniia,
21: 514n.
40 From"Confession,"a manuscript
ofMan
by Marx's daughterprintedin ErichFromm,Marx'sConcept
(New York, 1962), 257.

306

Beatrice
Farnsworth
Brodsky

Whilenotpoliticallya
fewunderstoodthatphrasewithKollontai'ssensitivity.
feminist,she did share theirview that womenwere inherently
strongand
needed freedomfromthe debilitatingprotectionof men. She singledout
Trotsky-a riskythingto do in 1926 when he was under attack fromthe
Stalinists-as beingofgreathelpto thewomen'ssectionin itswork.4'Yet not
evenTrotsky-and ifI seemto concentrateon himit is because ofthedegree
thatherplan was an opportuofhis concernand commitment-understood
toward
nityforthe party to raise the consciousnessof the masses further
socialism.
On this issue the women'ssectionprovedno moremonolithicthan other
Bolshevikinstitutions.
Here, too, Kollontaifoundopponents.Smidovich,the
section'sformerdirector,willinglyspokeforthe party.Chosen in 1925 as a
memberof the powerfulCentral Control Commission,livingcomfortably
enoughin a traditionalfamily,she was reasonablyfreeoftensionsconcerning
the woman question.While Kollontaiviewedthe revolutionprimarilyfrom
the perspectiveof women'sliberation,Smidovichregardedthatproblemas
one amongmany.The twoOld Bolsheviks,
each age fifty-four,
saw themselves
as representing
different
a factthatin itselfproveda cause for
constituencies,
suspicion.Smidovich,grayhairedand grandmotherly,
spokeas a memberof
an older,morestaidgenerationthatwantedto protectwomenfromthesexual
irresponsibility
of men, a problemto which Kollontai seemed indifferent.
Kollontaigazed, strikingly
attractiveand stillyouthful,
fromthecoverofthe
popular magazine,Ekran,in whose pages she argued on behalfof socialist
womenwho were strongand wantedto be free.42
In contrastto Kollontai's
unquenchable idealism,Smidovichsounded practicalas she affirmedthe
theoreticalsuperiorityof communalraising of childrenbut defendedthe
party's abandonmentof effortsto replace the individualhousehold.Her
towardKollontaiunconcealed,SmidovicharguedthatSovietRussia
hostility
could notyetaffordKollontai'sdreams.43
The Smidovicheswereconservative,
and Petr Smidovich,a senior memberof the Moscow Committeeof the
Bolshevikparty,respondedon the eve of I917 to Lenin's radical course by
insisting:"There do not existthe forces,the objectiveconditionsforthis."44
LEADERS
STRUGGLING
FOR POWER in 1926 knewthatthewoman question
was not politicallydecisive.Kollontai'splan to replacealimonyby a general

THE

4' Kollontai,Autobiography,
42.
42 Ekran[Screen],1926,no. 5.

43 See Smidovich'sconversation
to Smith,in Smith,Woman
inSoviet
Russia,102-03; Smidovich,"O novom
kodeksezakonovo brakei sem'e," 45-46; and her "Nashi zadachi v oblasti pereustroistva
byta," 22-24.
Smidovicharguedthathomesformothersand childrenweretoo expensiveforthe stateto carry,and she
recommendedlocal initiative
on thepartofworkingwomento establishlessexpensivecommunalfacilities
such as day nurseries.She criticizedthe attitudeof those who believedthat the liberationof working
womenmustcome onlyfromthestrength
and moneyofthestate.It is difficult
to determinetheamountof
real supportforKollontaiin thewomen'ssection,sinceSmidovichmayhaveexertedconsiderableinfluence
because ofherpositionon theCentralControlCommission.Butjudgingbythearticlesthatdid appear in
Kommunistka,
supportwas notwidespread.VarvaraGolubevawas one ofthefewvoicesin oppositionto the
new marriagelaw. "K diskussiipo voprosambrachnogoi semeinogoprava" [Towarda Discussionofthe
Marriageand FamilyLaw], Kommunistka,
1926,no. 1, pp. 50-53.
44 AS quoted in Cohen,Bukharin,
50.

E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fig. 3. A. M. Kollontai(in top rowcenter)withchildrenat a day care centerin 1919 duringthecivilwar.

From Kollontai,Iz Moei Zhiznii Raboty.

308

Beatrice
Farnsworth
Brodsky

evidenceof her Left

fund,based on a progressivetax, was simplyfurther
mid-twenties
was
deviation.Partofthetragedyofbolshevismin theformative
thatimmediatepressurescould so easilyerodeoriginalhopes. Staunchrevolutionaries-notyetbrokenor becomeStalinistservants-weretoo readyto
abandontheideal and grasptheexpedientsolution.More specifica cause was
the ambivalencewith which the party in I919 had adopted the woman
question as a programmaticgoal. Too few people were committedto its
success. And among themwere those like Sophia Smidovichand Trotsky,
who forall theirsocialism,were unaware that theycontinuedto thinkof
womenas in need ofmale protection.Habits ofthought,evenamongrevolutionaries,changeslowly.
abanSome historians,notablyE. H. Carr, suggestthatthe government's
donmentin 1922 of its originalplan to supportneedymothersand children
legislaindicatesthatthoseearlystepshad neverbeen morethanemergency
be
the
with
other
to
discarded
only
by
party
tion evolvingspontaneously
insofaras it suggestsa
featuresofwar communism.Such an interpretation,
lack ofa theoreticalbase, is misleading.Kollontai,whowas chosenby Lenin
as commissarofpublicwelfarein 1917,in whichofficeshecould do littlemore
with her meager resourcesthan express aspirations,had foryears been
advocatingmeasuresof state protectionthat were based on commonlyasInsofaras Carr impliesan inadequatecommitment
sumed socialisttheory.45
on the part of Bolsheviksto orthodoxsocialistassumptionsor a varietyof
Bolshevikinterpretations
of social theory,his position,of course, is valid.
Reportingin I922 to the EleventhPartyCongress,Lenin remarkedsuggestivelythat"the economicforcesunderthe controloftheproletarianstateof
to ensurethetransition
to communism.Whatthen
Russia are quite sufficient
is lacking?What is lackingis culturein the stratumof Communiststhatis
governing."ElsewhereLeninobservedthatmanycomradeswerestill"Philistines" in theirmentalityregardingwomen.46
thepartymembership
had
Carr contendsfurther
thatbythemid-twenties,
rejectedKollontai'spositionon the family,that it was alreadydivergingin
"practice and opinion" fromEngel's doctrineon which it was based: the
liberationofwomenfromdomesticlabor. CarrcitesTrotsky'ssymposiumfor
partyworkersin 1923 as a sourceto illustratea desirefortraditionallife.47
More accurately,the symposiumrevealedthe conflictbetweenthe conventionalfamilyattitudesofmenand thedesireforgreaterfreedomon thepartof
women.48

Was it not a case of failureof the leadershipto respond to a slowly

(Baltimore,1970),1: 39-40.The term"war communism"refersto

in OneCountry
4 E. H. Carr,Socialism
thepoliciesoftheera ofcivilwar, 1918-21. Many radicalmeasuresadoptedduringthisperiod,suchas labor
ofgrainfromthepeasants,wereendedwiththeNEP; Carr himself
and forcedrequisitioning
conscription
of
thatwomenmustbe relievedofdomesticcare throughtheinstitution
citesMarx and Engelsto theeffect
communaldininghalls and nurseries.Ibid.,38.
46 Lenin, Sochineniia
(4th ed.; Moscow, 1951),33: 258. For Lenin's observationconcerningattitudes
56.
towardwomen,see Zetkin,Reminiscences,
1: 43.
inOneCountry,
4 Carr,Socialism
48Trotsky,Voprosy
Byta,84-88.

Kollontai
and Aleksandra
theWomanQuestion,
Bolshevism,

309

awakeningsense amongwomenofthe possibilitiesinherentin Engel's theoState?

ries,as elaboratedby Kollontaiin 1920 in TheFamilyandtheCommunist
in 1923 and again in 1925 thatthewomanquestionwas not
Trotskyregretted
Many men no
being givengreaterattentionin the press and elsewhere.49
but
women
many
eagerlyawaited
doubt preferredthe traditionalfamily,
of the promisesofpartyworkersfromthe women'ssectionwho,
fulfillment
could do littleaboutthelack
thegrowingresponseto theirefforts,
recognizing
but expressdistressand frustraofgovernment
supportforsocial institutions
butin theclubs,lamented
Where"officially"
tionin thepages ofKommunistka.
The overcrowded
spirit?
couldone evensummonthecollective
a womanworker,
communalhouses,and the inadequatepublic
barracks,the overflowing
factory
diningroomswerenotlikelyto winpeopleoverto thecollectivewayoflife.50
TO KOLLONTAI SUGGESTS thatin factshe had raiseda specter:the
"witheringaway of the family."If in the West this conceptwas seen as a
Communisttruism,forthe Sovietleadership,concernedmainlywithpolitics
what was soon to be knownas
and economicsnot withsocial experiments,
The partyknewin 1926 thatit needed
Kollontai'sidea had becomean irritant.5"
the family,meaningthe women,to do what theyhad always done-raise
children,cook, and keep house. So when Kursky,citingLenin,gave assurances that somedayunder communismthe state would undertakethe upbringingof all children,when Smidovichagreed but insistedthat fornow
usefulas a sloganto rally
"destructionoftheisolated,individualhouseholcf,"
womenin I9I8, was not applicable,when Mikhail Kalinin,chairmanofthe
Central ExecutiveCommittee,referredto the new marriagelaw as deeply
affectingSoviet life,seemingto assume the permanenceof the familyit
the"witheringaway" concept
protected,one sensedthatforthe government
In the women'ssectionit remaineda reality.
had become a socialistmyth.52

OPPOSITION

49Ibid.,8i, and Trotsky,"Okhrana Materinstvai bor'ba za Kul'turu,"55.

5OZ. Rakitina, "Byt po zametkamrabotnits,"[The Way of Life Accordingto Notes of Working
Women],Kommunistka,
1926,no. 12, pp. 32-36.Lettersfromworkingwomento thejournal,Rabotnitsa
[The
Woman Worker],quoted in these pages in Kommunistka
suggesttheireagernessforsocial change. The
enthusiasmof workingwomenforchild care institutions
and forthe workof clubs tryingto raise their
politicaland social levelis also documented.
61 The concept itselfhad been leftvague by Marx and Engels, as Lenin explained when he chided
Kollontaiin igig forassumingprematurely
to specifythe futureformofthe socialistfamily.The Eighth
PartyCongress rejectedincorporating
in its new programKollontai's proposalsconcerningthe future
disappearance of the individual,isolated family-proposals that she suggesteddespite Lenin's prior
objection.Itkina,Revoliulsioner,
208.In herrecollections,
Kollontairefers
to herproposalsbeingrejectedbut
also to hervictoryin gettingpassed a resolutionconcerning
theneedforthepartyto workmorespecifically
among women."Avtobiograficheskii
Ocherk,"301.
"For Kursky'sremarks,see "Discussion of the Draftof the Code," 91; forSmidovich,"O Novom
Kodekse zakonovo brake i sem'e," 46; forKalinin,"Discussion of the Draftof the Code," 119. It is of
interestthatthe 1918legislationon thefamilyhad provisionsforstatecare ofdependentsthatwereomitted
fromthe 1926 legislation.For example,the sectionstatingthatparentswereobligedto provideboard and
maintenancefortheirminorchildren,iftheywerein need and unable to work,was followedby a notation
thattheparentalobligationsherestatedwereto be suspendedin theeventofthechildrenbeingmaintained
by publicor governmental
care. This notationwas notincludedin the 1926 legislation.Similarlyin 1918it
was statedthatchildrenwereobligedto providemaintenanceforneedyparentsunable to workunlessthe
latterwereto receivemaintenancefromthegovernment
in accordwiththelaw ofinsuranceagainstillness.

310

Beatrice
Brodsky
Farnsworth

But insteadof the family,the women'ssectionitselfwould disappear,abolished by Stalin in 1929 on the specious ground that its tasks had been
completed.In less thantenyears,the slogan"witheringaway ofthefamily"
was to movefrommythto heresywithKollontai'sTheFamilyandtheCommunist
Statecitedas its "undoubtedlyharmful"source.53
In the moraland personaldisapprovaldirectedagainst Kollontaione saw
further
mythmaking.
Althoughshe criticizeddebaucheryin termssimilarto
thoseused earlierby Lenin (but at the same time,questionedthe supposed
dissolutenessof Komsomolyouth),54slashingattacksin the press accused
Kollontaiof tryingto reviveher "discredited"advocacyof Ultra-Left,decadent,freeloveby meansoftheGeneralInsuranceFund,whichwouldfurther
The Komsomol journal, Molodaia
encourage youthfulirresponsibility.55
theparty's
Gvardiia,
whichhad carriedKollontai'sessaysin 1923, nowreflected
puritanicallineby printing
articlesharshlycriticalofher.In one instancethe
editorswere perhaps uneasy overpublishingan attackon a comradewho
invariablydefendedSovietyouth.In a footnotethatimpliedtheirapartness
fromthe assault,theyinvitedreadersto expresstheirown viewpointsbased
on available,factualmaterials.56
Withthecontention
thatalimonywas one ofthebestmeansto regulateand
to restrainsexual life,withthe chargethat in advocatingits abolitionKollontai was seekingto removepersonalresponsibility
fromthe sexual lifeof
men, Kollontai'scriticssuggestedthe developmentof new attitudestoward
privacy. In 1883 the German Socialist leader, August Bebel, wrote that
satisfaction
ofthe sexual instinctwas a privateconcernto be interfered
with
by no one.57Presumably,assigninglegalconsequencestodefacto
marriagewas
in itselfa violationof personalprivacy,but even beforeI926 doubts were
expressedin the partyas to the feasibility
ofBebel's assumption.Bukharin's
attemptin 1922 to use his personalpopularitywiththe Komsomolsto urge
old age, or social security.This provisowas omittedin 1926. See the text of the 1926 legislationin
Schlesinger,
FamilyintheU.S.S.R., 163;comparewiththe 1918familylaw, ibid.,40. Furtherindicationthat
thestatewas movingaway fromassumingtheburdensofthefamilywas givenin 1924 whenAlekseiRykov,
chairmanoftheCouncilofCommissars,attackedtheidea ofchildren'shomesas obviouslyinadequateand
also unwise since theyseparatedthe child fromproductivelabor. Carr, Socialismin OneCountry,
1: 45.
6 See V. Svetlov,"Socialist Societyand the Family,"Pod Znamenem
Marksizma[Underthe Bannerof
Marxism], 1936,no. 6, translatedand reprintedin Schlesinger,Familyin theU.S.S.R., 333. S. Volfson,
renouncingas erroneoushis thesispublishedin 1929 thatsocialismentailedthe extinctionof the family,
nowwrotethat"assertionsthatsocialismleads to theextinction
ofthefamilyare profoundly
mistakenand
harmful."This renunciationis foundin his "Socialism and the Family,"in ibid.,315.
" Kollontai,"Brak i byt,"375-76.
65 For the mostcompleteattackon Kollontai,see Lavrov,"Polovoi voprosi Molodezh'," 145.Calling
Kollontai'sstatements
an exampleofpreciselythewrongkindofthinking,
Lavrovaccused heroftryingin
1926,withheridea forabolishingalimony,to takerevengefortheattackson hersexualtheoriesin 1923.The
reference
is to Kollontai'sarticle,"Dorogu Krylatomy
Erosu!" [To theWingedEros!], MolodaiaGvardiia,
1923,no. 3, pp. 111-24, and hernovella,"Loves ofThree Generations,"whichappeared in the collection,
Liubovpcheltrydovykh
[Love of the WorkerBees], tr. Lilly Lore (Moscow, 1923),180-243. The notionthat
alimonyacted as a restraint
on theconductofmenwas echoedin a letterto Komsomolskaia
Pravda,Mar. 2 1,
1926,p. 4.
56 Lavrov,"Polovoivoprosi Molodezh'," 136.
57 AugustBebel,Die Frauinder
undZukunft
Vergangenheit,
Gegenwart
(Zurich,1883),tr.by Daniel De Leon
as Womanunder
Socialism(New York, 1971), 343.

and Aleksandra
theWomanQuestion,
Kollontai
Bolshevism,

311

youthto a morecontrolledsex lifeis one example.58Polina Vinogradskaia,a

moved in a
young Trotskyistwho workedwith Kollontai on Kommunistka,
similarway when she viciouslycondemnedKollontaiin 1923 as a bourgeois
who wastedpages ofSovietjournalswitharticlesextollingsexuality.
feminist
The editorsofKrasnaiaNov' were unhappyenoughto apologize in printfor
socialist
this cruel attack on a "fightingcomrade." Vinogradskaiaaffirmed
privacybut at thesame timeinsisted,in a noveltributeto Trotsky'stheoryof
thatit was absolutely"inadmissable"fora Bolshevik
permanentrevolution,
to dwell on sex in view of the politicalsetbackof the Communistpartyin
Givingassurancesthatsomedayundercommunismtherewould
Germany.59
be no need formoral laws, Emilian laroslavskii,a Stalinistand a leading
figurein the party'sCentral ControlCommission,warned that it was for
bourgeoisnot proletarianyouth to flitfromflowerto flowerindulgingin
Kollontai's"love oftheworkerbees." In fact,laroslavskiirecalled,foreightor
nineyearshe sat in prisonand sexual abstinencehad done him no harm.60
What caused this violationof privacyby Bolshevikswho simultaneously
assertedtheirbeliefin the socialistpromiseofcompletefreedomin personal
of
era. The poverty
life?Invariablywe havetheanswer:thisis thetransitional
Sovietsociety,the homelesschildren,and theneed fortheresponsiblefamily
duringthetwentieswereseriousfactors;yetthereseemsanotherexplanation
forthe aviditywithwhichpartymembersrelegatedprivacyto mythology.
The founderof the Marx-LeninInstitute,David Riazanov-a Bolshevikof
and somethingofan eccentricin his penchantforspeakingthetruth
integrity
bluntly-declaredduringthedebatesofI926 whatothercomradeshad merely
suggested:"We should teach our youngKomsomolsthatmarriageis not a
demandinginterference
personalact, but an act of deep social significance,
and regulationby society."'"Riazanov impliedthatin factthepartyaimedat
a scienceofhuman behavior.
Again,why?What was therein Russian bolshevismthatimpelledit as a
Europeansocialism?In a suggesmovement
to turnaway fromless restrictive
tiveanalysis,thesocial scientistNathan Leitesprovidesa clue whenhe refers
In therhetoricofattackagainstKollontai,
to Bolshevikfearofloss ofcontrol.62
fromSmidovich,throughIaroslavskii,to Vinogradskaia,thereoccurredover
and "debauchery,"whichimpliedlack
and overwordslike"irresponsibility"
58 V Vserossiiskii
S"ezd RKSM (Moscow, 1927), 114, 124-25.

59Polina Vinogradskaia,"Voprosy morali,pola, byta,i tov. Kollontai" [Questionsof Morality,Sex,

Daily Life,and Comrade Kollontai],KrasnaiaNaov'[Red VirginSoil], 1923,no. 6, p. igo. For theapology
to Kollontai,see ibid.,no. 7, p. 306.
60 Iaroslavskii,
period," 150. WithoutusingKollontai'sname,
"Moral' i bytproletariatav perekhodnyi
concerningher
Iaroslavskiireferred
to thecollectionofstoriesby Kollontaiwiththattitle.The distortions
debauchery.
viewswereso widespreadthather titlesalone had come to signify
61 As quoted by an observer
at the meeting,in Smith,WomaninSovietRussia, 1 7. Riazanov insiststhat
ofmarriage,buLt
itwouldthenbe regardedas an
evenin theCommunistfuturetherewouldbe registration
obligationas naturalas the obligationto work.His viewsare explainedin his "Marks i Engelso brakei
sem'e," 34-35.That same year, 1927,the viewsofpartyleadersconcerningpersonalmoralitywerepubbyt[EverydayLife forKomsomols] (Moscow, 1927). Bukharin,
lished in Izrail Razin, ed., Komsomolskii
Lunacharsky,and Iaroslavskiiwereamongthe manywho advocatedgreatersexual restraint-theorthodox partyview.
62 NathanLeites,A Study
ofBolshevism
(Glencoe,Ill., 1953),i86.

312

Beatrice
Farnsworth
Brodsky

of order. In privacytherelurkedthe possibilitythat youth,expendingits

forthe party.
energyin sexual excess,mightcease to workpurposefully
Ironically,but in reality,workas the ultimateliberatingforceforwomen
themein Kollontai'sownwriting.She applauded thelabor
formsa persistent
thatcharacterizedthecivilwar years.Her projectedcommune,
conscription
alarmingto the party because of its suggestionof freer,less conventional
marriagepatterns,appears really to be a somewhatrigid,work-oriented
institution.
Years beforeFreud theorizedabout conflictsbetweensexuality
and workKollontai had intuitedthe same dilemmaforthe socialistcommune.63Unlike Fourier'sphalansterywhereindividualswould fulfillthemselvesin passion, Kollontai'speople, althoughsexuallyfree,would relegate
sex to a secondplace-while on the rockofcollectiveworktheywould build
the newsociety.WhileKollontai'scollectiveseemedalarminglyloose to most
Bolsheviks,HerbertMarcuse used it as butanotherexampleofSovietrepression.64

Kollontai'ssingularpositionderivedfromheremphasis,unique to bolshevism,in fusingsex and work.Yet wherein Kollontai'scollectivewas privacy?

The lovingcouple,absorbedprimarilyin each other,would notbe welcome.
In rejectingthis individualpreference,Kollontai suggeststhat withinthe
libertarianthere dwelled somethingof the authoritarian.The ambiguity
remainedbut it was of no interestto a regimeintentin I926 on crushing
Kollontai'sleft-wing,
social deviance.
PERHAPS THE INTENSE EXPERIENCE of renewed party criticism,reminding
Kollontai of the depressingdays that followedthe failureof the Workers'
Opposition,had the countereffect
of keepingher withinthe party.Thoroughlysocialized,she dreadedthecontemptofhercomrades.She thoughtof
anotherwomanwho had leftRussia, AngelicaBalabanoff,thefirstsecretary
of the CommunistInternational,who broke withbolshevismin I92I. Kollontaiknewshe could notbear thevilification
thathad been directedagainst
Balabanoff.65
Her sense of identitywith Balabanoffsuggeststhat Kollontai
saw herselfnotso muchas a Bolshevikleaderbut as a Bolshevikwoman.One
wondersifthis perceptionwas general,ifantagonismtowardan aggressive
femaleplayed a part in negativeattitudestowardKollontaiand hertheories,
ifa woman became morevulnerablewhen she invadedthe masculineprovinceswhereBolshevikpoliciesweredetermined.Certainepisodesare suggestive. In April 1917 onlyKollontai supportedLenin's oppositionto working
63 Freud analyzedthe problemin 1930in his Civilization
andItsDiscontents
(New York, 1930), 56-57.For
ofworkconscription
Kollontai'sglorification
thatexistedduringthewarcommunismera and herviewthat
it was the best hope forwomen'strueliberation,see herPolozhenie
v Evoliutsii
Khoziaistva
[The
Zhenshchiny
PositionofWomen in Connectionwiththe Developmentof the Economy](Moscow, 1923),152, i66. For
suggestionsas to the primaryplace work,ratherthan love,would have in the proposedcommune,see
"Brak i byt," 376. Elsewhere,however,Kollontai suggeststhat love was forher a source of energy.
Autobiography,
22.
64 For HerbertMarcuse'sview,see hisSoviet
Marxism(New York, 1961), 233-34.
' Body,"AlexandraKollontai," 17.

and Aleksandra
Kollontai
Bolshevism,
theWomanQuestion,

3I3

and the factwas regardedas amusing

withRussia's provisionalgovernment,
of
a
to
the
popular
jingle.66In 192I not even Lenin was
be
subject
enough
above makinga snide referenceat the Tenth PartyCongressto Kollontai's
could always
privatelife.67Intimationsthat Kollontai was overaggressive
produce a laugh fromassembledCommunists:an Amazon, Trotskycalled
oftheComintern.Stalinhad no
her,a Valkyrie,added Karl Radek, secretary
womenintheparty,callingthem"herringswithideas."68
use forintellectual
BY EARLY SUMMER OF 1926, sensingthatshe had used thelast ofheremotional
resourcesand deeplydisheartenedby divisionsin theparty,Kollontaiabandoned notonlythefantasyofan independentlifebut the veryselfwho more
thanonce had boldlyopposed Lenin. As Stalinpreparedto crushtheopposition,Kollontaiforthefirsttimebecame cautious.Reflectingan awarenessof
so as notto
thenarrowing
ofpartyattitudes,shereviseda briefautobiography
Claiming
seem an advocate of a radicalismthat opposed the Stalinists.69
privatelythatshe wantedmostto livefreelyas a writer,she clunginsteadto
familiarauthority.70
She agreed with much of the criticismthe Trotskyists
weredirectingagainstrepressionin theparty,butin thesummerof1926 when
Trotsky'semissariescame seekinghersupport,theycame in vain.Despiteher
friendshipwith oppositionistslike ChristianRakovsky,a memberof the
Central Committeeand the ambassador to France,who chided her fornot
joining them,her attitudetowardTrotskyhimselfwas ambivalent.For his
concernwiththewomanquestionshe was grateful;buthow could she believe
thatTrotskyin powerwould alterthemood thatStalinwas brutallyimposing, be more tolerantof disagreement?An authoritarianTrotsky,together
withGrigoryZinoviev,the chairmanof the CommunistInternational,had
ensureddefeatofher appeal to the Cominternfouryearsearlierin behalfof
dissent.7'In the end, the leadersin bothcamps failedher,neither
intraparty
side able to understandher attemptto supply much-neededevidence to
66"Lenin Chto tam ni boltai. Soglasna s nim lish' Kollontai" [No matterwhat Lenin babbles, only
Ocherk," 296.
Kollontaiagreeswithhim]. Kollontai,"Avtobiograficheskii
67 X
Otchet
Kommunisticheskoi
(Petrograd,1921),
S "ezdaRossiiskoi
Partii(8-i6 Marta1921 g) Stenograficheskii
48. Lenin impliedthatKollontaihad resumedherformerliaisonwiththe commissaroflabor,Alexander
awkwardbecause Kollontaiwas marriedto Pavel Dybenko,also in the
Shliapnikov.This was particularly
Sovietgovernment.
StenograKommunisticheskogo
Internatsionala
Kongress
f Trotskyand Karl Radek as quoted in TretiiVsemzrnyz
ficheskii
Otchet
(Petrograd,1922), 372; Stalin as quoted in Svetlana Alliluyeva,OnlyOne rear (New York,
1969),381.
69 Kollontaiwroteto Elga Kern, editorof the series,Leading Women of Europe, apologizingforthe
she explained.The changes
extensiverevisionsshe had made in hermanuscript.It could notbe otherwise,
had to be made because she was an "officialperson."Since herrevisionswereso drastic,Kollontaioffered
to bear the cost ofany additionalexpensestheymightcause. This letter,datedJuly19, 1926,appears as a
Kommunistin
(Munich, 1970).It is omitted
EinerSexuellEmanzipierten
centerinsertin Kollontai,Autobiographie
speculatingas to whythe
in the Englishedition,thusallowingfora somewhatdisingenuousintroduction
revisionsweremade.
70Michael Futrell,Northern
(New York, 1963),113-14.
Underground
71 Afterher exile, in part to disassociateherself
fromthe supportersof Trotsky,Kollontaisentto the
period.Some passages,highlycriticalof
partyarchivesletterswrittenby Leninduringtheprerevolutionary
Trotsky,werelaterused as partofthe campaignto discredithim. But Lev Kamenev,who editedthefirst
editionof these letters,omittedthe mostdamagingwords,"What a swinethat.Trotsky."See Lenin to

314

Brodsky
Farnsworth
Beatrice

disillusionedSoviet youth that the regime,despite the NEP, still worked

towardsocialism.
did notimproveherpositioninthe
Kollontai'srefusaltojoin theTrotskyists
forcalling its new
party; fordaring to question its socialistcommitment,
familylegislationbourgeois,Kollontaistillhad to be punished.In theautumn
of 1926 she was sentintoevenmoredistantexilein Mexico City.Her decision
in 1927 publiclyto denounceoppositionmay have had its impetusin anxiety
to getout of Mexico, but itwas also thepriceforremainingin theparty,her
wereexpelledin I927, Kollontaiopenly
onlyhome.As the Leftoppositionists
condemnedthem in the pages of Pravda.Resentmentagainst Trotskyand
Zinovievmade thetaskeasier.Her wordsringwithhelplessanger:themasses
ofthemassdo nottrusttheopposition.Does theoppositionthinkthememory
themselves
es so shortthat the masses cannotrecall thatthe oppositionists
helpedbuild thedefectstheynow attack?She renouncednotonlyopposition
but spontaneity-declaring
thatin themassesa collectivewillhad maturedto
triumphover the spontaneousindividualismnecessaryduringthe civilwar
In joiningthe
but no longerneedednow in a timeofcollectiveconstruction.72
thatprevailedin
thediversity
leadershipin mythmaking,
she was also stifling
the earlyrevolutionary
era whenin the name ofMarxisminnumerableideas
and alternativesto Stalinismflourished.Her sexual and communaltheories
ceased to appear in Sovietjournals.
PubliclyacceptingStalinism,choosingto supportitsmyths,meantbecomamongmuchthatshe knewto be untrue
inga personofsecretpain, affirming
theboastthatSovietwomen,liberatedfrombourgeoisroles,had achievedthe
socialist goal. Advancementsin communalchild care facilitiesand aid to
motherswere made under Stalin-most notablyin 1944-but frommotives
other than those promulgatedinitiallyby the women's sectionwhen the
"witheringaway of the family"was a premise.Womenwere needed in the
workforceafterI929 in connectionwiththe five-year
plans-hence the day
care centers.But theywere also being encouragedto have large families,
which meant a less public role and a continuationof men in positionsof
power.73
Abolitionof the Zhenotdelin 1929 and the condemnationof Kollontai's
interpretation
of the woman questioncoincidedwiththe Stalin revolution.
Using the partyand the secretpolice,Stalin inaugurateda fulltotalitarian
statesystemmarkedby an end to NEP, theonsetofcoerciveindustrialization
and the terroristic
of peasant farming.Should we conclude
collectivization
thatStalin,thedominantforcein theparty,led theoppositionto Zhenotdel?
Not necessarily.More likelyhe shared in prevailingattitudesamong the
to antipathy.As a finalhumiliation,
leadershipthatrangedfrominsensitivity
Sbornik
Kollontai,Feb. 17,1917,in Leninskii
[LeninMiscellany](Moscow, I924), 2: 282. Comparethisletter
andtheWorld
withthe completeversionthatappears in Olga H. Gankinand H. H. Fisher,TheBolsheviks
(Stanford,1940), 576.
War: The OriginoftheThirdInternational
72 Kollontai,"Oppozitsiia i partiinaiamassa" [The Oppositionand the PartyRank and File], Pravda,
Oct. 30, 1927.
"Alliluyeva, OnlyOne rear,38i.

INI.

. ....

lA
M
Wg

.f...i

.M4

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fig. 4. Kollontai in 1952, the year of her death. She was eightyyearsold.
From Kollontai,Iz Moei Zhiznii Raboty.

316

Beatrice
Brodsky
Farnsworth

Kollontai wrote in I946 that the Soviet state "had providedwomen with
access to all areas of creativeactivityand at the same timeprovidedall the
necessaryconditionsto enable her to fulfillher natural duty as mother,
educatingher own children,as mistressofher own home."74
By the ironyof history,the veryfailureof the socialistpromiseof full
equality,its conversionto myth,seems a factorsavingKollontai fromthe
deadlyfateofotherOld Bolsheviks.The mythneededitssymbols:Kollontai,
deprivedofany influencein the party,servedin Sweden as the world'sfirst
woman ambassador.And Stalin,who had spokencontemptuously
of Lenin
duringhis last illness as being "surroundedby womenfolk,"75
may have
enjoyed keeping alive, and subjectingto terror,the abject Kollontai-an
indicationthathe did notbelieveBolshevikwomenwereimportant
enoughto
shoot.76

7 Kollontai, "Sovetskaia Zhenshchina-Polnopravnaia Grazhdanka Svoei Strany" [The Soviet

Woman-A CitizenwithFull Rightsin Her Own Country],in her Izbrannye
Stat'ii Rechi,378.
Stalinquotedin RobertH. McNeal, BrideoftheRevolution:
Krupskaya
andLenin(AnnArbor,1972), 245.
76Roy Medvedevwritesofthehumiliation
and terrorOld BolshevikslikeKollontaiweresubjectedtobut
keptalive in his Let History
Judge:The Originsand Consequences
ofStalinism,
tr. Colleen Taylor,ed. David
Joravskyand GeorgesHaupt (New York, 1971),200. Like Krupskaia,Kollontaiwas a usefulsymbol.A
Moscow friendrecalledthatwhenKollontaireturnedto Moscowduringherlastyearsin thelateforties
she
was regardedas an "internalexile"; friendskeptaway,afraidto visittheold woman.This same man,who
spoke of Kollontai'sclose friend,Elena Stasova, anotherOld Bolshevik,as also isolatedfromthe party,
attributestheirsurvivalin part to the factthat theywere women. Moscow interview.RobertDaniels
suggeststhatitwas a streakofGeorgianchivalrythatkeptStalinfrompurgingOld BolshevikoppositionistsKollontaiand Nikolaeva.TheConscience
oftheRevolution
(Cambridge,Mass., 960),389. I think,rather,
thatit was Stalin's contemptforwomenmorethan his supposedchivalrythatenabled thesetwo former
oppositionists
to survive.Stalin,ofcourse,did nothesitateto purgethewivesofBolsheviks.And theremay
be one notableexceptionto thesurvivalofoppositionist
women.MedvedevwritesthatVarvaraiakovleva,
an oppositionist
in 1918whowas forcedto testify
againstBukharinin 1939,was latershot.LetHistory
Judge,
i8i. RobertConquestreportedthatIakovlevasupposedlysurviveduntil1944. TheGreatTerror
(New York,
1968),400.