My good friend in Kiev (former Soviet Union), Slava Pilman, was a promising and struggling visual artist. In the early 1970s, he admired Western art of the mid-19th and early 20th centuries, but he had no passion and tolerance for the Socialist Realism style.

From about the early 1930s to the mid-late 1980s, Socialist Realism was the official cultural doctrine of the Soviet Union. This style mandated an idealized representation of Soviet life and cultural traditions under socialism in literature and the visual arts. The doctrine was first proclaimed by the First Congress of Soviet Writers in 1934, which approved the standardized methods for the Soviet cultural production in all media.

Soon after the October Socialist Revolution of 1917 in Russia, Vladimir Lenin laid down his principles on what purpose visual art must serve for the working masses. He believed that it was important that visual art was no longer a domain of the upper classes and the bourgeoisie.

Then, socialist realism was seen as the means of educating people; so, any deviance was often punishable by the Soviet Secret Police with varying harsh outcomes.

“Art belongs to the people,” he stated. “It must leave its deepest roots in the very thick of the working masses.” (Clara Zetkin, “Reminiscences of Lenin,” January 1924).

Writers and artists were required to follow the party line on style and substance, especially under Joseph Stalin’s political rule (1922–1953). Moscow University and Moscow Metro are clear symbols of Stalinist’s architecture style. Then, socialist realism was seen as the means of educating people; so, any deviance was often punishable by the Soviet Secret Police with varying harsh outcomes.

During the Nikita Khrushchev political era (1957–1964), literature and visual art were still stagnant. Khrushchev declared: “As long as I am President of the Council of Ministers, we are going to support genuine art. We aren’t going to give a kopeck [cent] for pictures painted by jackasses. History can be our judge. For the time being history has put us at the head of this state, and we have to answer for everything that goes on in it. Therefore, we are going to maintain a strict policy in art.” (Source: Encounter (London), April 1963).

Leonid Brezhnev’s stagnant political era (1964–1982) in the Soviet Union continued to be sanctioned by only one artistic style — Socialist Realism. Paintings and sculptures emphasized idealized figures heroically enduring hardships on a relentless crusade for progress and prosperity toward “delusional” communism.

So, Slava Pilman, as well as many other intellectuals in the Soviet Union, was trapped in the illusive socialist reality. I kept advising Slava to compromise and adjust his artistic style to the existing socialist environment, “Slava, paint cows, peasants and workers, otherwise you will starve to death.” Slava’s usual response was, “I am a free artist, and I will paint what I see and think, not what they want me to see and think.” “Slava, you are free from a job,” I reminded him, “… and you are going to die in the Gulag as a free man.”

…editors of the major newspapers in the former Soviet Union, for the most part, were political appointees, with the connection to the State Secret Police. Their job was to suppress freedom of speech and advocate socialist doctrines.

I left the Soviet Union on March 16^th, 1977, under the status of a political refugee; and I lost track of my friend Slava Pilman. One day, however, Slava’s predicament re-appeared in my memories when in 1987 the Soviet delegation visited Juneau. Then, I was teaching archaeology, history and Russian Studies at the University of Alaska Southeast; I was frequently called to translate/assist for various delegations from the Soviet Union, visiting Alaska.

That delegation consisted of six high-ranking Soviet officials; it was sponsored by Rotary International. My close friend, the late Bill Ruddy and his wife Kathy Kolhorst hosted this group. Vladimir Nadein, a long-time letters’ editor of the Izvestiya (News) newspaper, was one of the delegates in this group. Then, Izvestiya was the second largest newspaper after Pravda (Truth) in the Soviet Union, with a circulation of several million copies and all content tightly controlled by the Communist Party watch dogs.

One day, Nadein asked me, “Sasha (Alexander), is there any way we can visit the State Archives? I am curious if we can locate any existing first-hand documents related to the Alaska-Siberia Lend-Lease Program during WWII.” Per his request, I took him to the State Library and in about ten-fifteen minutes the librarian brought us several original documents of the ALSIB program. “Remarkable,” Nadein proclaimed. “It would take months just to get permission to request the information in our State archives.” He examined the documents attentively and took some notes.

In fact, the editors of the major newspapers in the former Soviet Union, for the most part, were political appointees, with the connection to the State Secret Police. Their job was to suppress freedom of speech and advocate socialist doctrines.

I have never expected that today’s progressive American media, including those in Alaska, would resemble far-left Soviet style practices — poorly edited publications, unchecked primary sources and, periodically, publication of poorly written and misleading articles. No surprise that newspapers in Alaska and around the nation are losing their readership.

As my good friends noted in our private correspondence: “Every day, I wonder and despair about the condition of the media. I’ve always said, ‘why isn’t lying against the law?’ It is so common, not only in the media, but in our government, which has failed us miserably.”

“Indeed, our American media is dominated by far-left ideology. Once known for their pursuit of the factual truth with an open mind, they are now indoctrinated by progressive dogma in our illiberal journalism schools and universities.”

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.