Spencer 1!

Morgan Spencer

Fashion & Socialism

Professor Cabrera Arus

12 May 2019

The New Soviet Housewife:

A Dangerous Key to Both Legitimization and Destruction Under Stalin

In the afternoon of May 10th, 1936, “over three thousand women convened in the Great

Hall of the Moscow Kremlin. Delegates to a nationwide conference, they waited expectantly in their best

dress, some seated on flower-bedecked dais where they were joined by the Soviet Union’s highest ranking

officials, including Stalin himself,” (Fig. 1) (Neary 107). For three days these women were congratulated

by officials and heard testimonials from their fellow delegates. These conferences were not unusual

during the time, particularly in congratulating the most productive Stakhanovite workers as well as the

“female tractor-drivers,” (Fig. 2) (Neary 107). However, this particular conference was the first of its

kind, entitled “All-Union Conference of Wives of Managers and Engineering-Technical Workers in

Heavy Industry.” In short, a conference for urban housewives. Nicknamed the obshchestvennitsa in the

dvizhenie zhen, the urban Soviet housewife turned activist, these women were regarded in the public as

“mistresses of the great soviet home,” and “non-party Bolsheviks” who could build socialism “together”

with their husbands (Neary 107). Thus, the collective identity of this particular group of urban

housewives under socialism was perhaps never distinct from the productive capacity of their husbands,

which could perhaps be why they are often unwritten in revisionist Soviet history. Yet, ironically, in the

latter half of the 1930s, Stalin indeed recognized them to be key to his legitimization. However,

ultimately, even Stalin underestimated the obshchestvennitsa in agency.

Lenin was first to mobilize women to work in the 1920s in order to increase productivity in a

failing post-revolutionary economy, as two years after the Bolshevik revolution he stated “petty

housework crushes, strangles, stultifies and degrades [the woman], chains her to the kitchen and to the
 Spencer 2!

nursery, and wastes her labor on barbarously unproductive, petty, nerve-racking, stultifying and crushing

drudgery,” (Lenin 429). In order to incentivize lower class and single women to find jobs, Lenin appealed

to feminist ethicality. Yet, the proposed “empowerment” given to women from Lenin’s quote did not,

however, come from a feminist battle in Russia. For, “it is generally not argued that social pressures were

strong enough to force the grime into radical action or that subsequent policy modifications or

“concessions” to aggrieved social groups were regime responses to assertive social resistance,” (Melanie

371). Instead, if action was taken in Soviet Russia on behalf of particular subcultural groups, potential

underlying motives should perhaps be analyzed. For, the enticement of “empowerment” came from

Lenin’s intention to incentivize the group for the underlying cause of necessary productivity. It was not,

in fact, for the betterment of women’s rights that women were allowed to enter the workforce.

Instead, it was for the survival of the country. In reality, it sounded more appealing framed under

the notion of empowering a gendered conflict. In either motive, Lenin’s call for productivity through the

enticement of economic independence eventually resulted in the rise from 423,200 employed women in

1923 to 885,000 women in 1930 (Goldman 12). However, problems ensued from mixing imposed female

gender roles and new revolutionary ideology. For example, the women that did have children and ended

up joining the quotidian revolution by joining the workforce, ended up having to succumb to a “double

shift” of both taking care of children and working full-time. One short story by Natalia Baranskaia,

published in Novyi Mir in 1969, about a couple, Olga and Dima, is used in discourse to summarize the

gendered dynamics during Lenin Stalin’s reign, despite its later publication. In Baranskaia’s piece,

“[Olga] and Dima trade barbs about who should be putting the children to bed and whose work is more

essential, and on Sunday Dima’s casual suggestion that Olga give up work altogether precipitates a

climactic row. The story ends with Olga having ironed Dima’s trousers after telling him to do it himself

and forgetting to sew the hook on her skirt.” (Siegelbaum 15). Thus, not every woman joined the

workforce due to prevailing pre-Revolutionary patriarchal norms. The subculture of the urban housewife

that survived Lenin’s enticement to productivity and remained under Stalin is a peculiar one.

In order to understand the peculiarity of this particular group, and Stalin’s interaction with it,

socialist theory must be delineated. While modern scholars “are still greatly underestimating the diversity

and complexity of Stalinist society, partly because [many] have implicitly accepted some of the
 Spencer 3!

limitations and prejudices of Stalinist-Marxist analysis of it,” (Fitz 364) it is important to analyze the

threat that the urban soviet housewife posed to socialism. For, in utilizing these contradictions to socialist

revolutionary fervor, Stalin was able to exert control over the group. According to Karl Marx, as

civilization progresses, a superstructure is created categorizing all thought and theory not related to

production, such as law, education, politics, etc., to be shaped from forces of production and social

relations under production. Under the forces of production falls the technology that shapes the methods in

industry, and under the relations of production falls the division of class that comes with the formation of

surplus production. The bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat (the exploited) are formed by

such relations of production. While the base shapes the superstructure in society, the superstructure also

maintains and legitimizes the base. Particularly, according to Marx, when “material productive forces of

society come into conflict with the existing relations of production,” the law favors the bourgeoisie (Marx

21). Prior to the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the urban housewife under Stalin, as a collective, most

likely belonged to the bourgeoisie. However, these women were not actually part of the forces of

production. They were omitted from influence in the superstructure because of their lack of representation

in the base. Thus, the access to material privileges they once had were in relation to their husband’s

productivity in capitalism; however, such material privileges were ideologically and physically stripped

under the class restructuring of socialism. Thus, to them, a “grayness” became characteristic of this period

(Fèhervary 428). Material items under socialism “were not meant to be a problem…[for] it was capitalism

that created problems by making things into commodities to be bought and sold for profit, creating desire,

envy, and a ‘fetishism’ of goods, (Fitzpatrick 1). Yet, the same phenomenon persisted under the new

socialist regime. In the scarcity of fashionable items and destruction of traditional feminine “beauty,”

fashion became a specter: a ghost haunting Stalin in the economy. The “grayness” was not only of

deprivation in scarcity, but also of “political repression,” from the urban housewife’s nostalgic desire.

Stalin, seeing opportunity in this nostalgia of material privileges, capitalized upon it in order to

legitimize his government and stabilize his power, beginning with experimentation within the economy

through access to privileged goods. However, Stalin faced problems surrounding production for all goods,

including basic agricultural needs for survival (evident in his 1927 “Revolution from Above” goals), that

disallowed the democratization of luxury goods for all. In 1927, Stalin implemented policy that led to the
 Spencer 4!

formation of both a bureaucracy (Intelligentsia) and a meritocracy (Stakhanovites) within the urban realm

of the Soviet Union. Thus, the existence of these “new urban elites,” epitomized an ideological conflict

Marx’s “material productive forces” and “relations of production.” Or, more concisely, conflict between

those granted access to material privileges, and those left behind Stalin’s meritocratic system. In

consumption, the Intelligentsia and the Stakhanovites reinstated bourgeois “taste” through more choice in

product assortment. However, because of true revolutionary Marxist ideology, material privileges gleaned

were met in greater society with “elite uneasiness about privilege, and a stronger degree of popular

resentment” formed towards both the meritocratic and bureaucratic classes (Fitzpatrick 457). Thus,

“having philistine, or, petty-bourgeois habits,” was vastly condemned (Attwood 26). Utilizing the

ideological conflict he created through liberalism, through granting access to material items, Stalin was

able to to control, and sway, the urban housewives of stakhanovites, or the obshchestvennitsa, in three

prominent ways. First, through the weaponizing the accumulation of fashion and luxury against those he

deemed disobedient. Second, through the elimination of the private sphere. And, third, through the

creation of “figured worlds,” (Mukerji 408).

Control: Weaponization of Image

The first of the three can be proved by Stalin’s ability to discredit the figure of the urban

housewife through the use of government sponsored media campaigns. The urban housewife became a

symbol in urban socialist media of the “bourgeois parasitism” just after the Bolshevik revolution under

Lenin, carrying into the first decade of Stalin’s reign. The campaigns were partially because of the Lenin’s

quotidian “call to women” to participate in the labor force. But, also partially from Stalin’s proposed new

type of daily life, or novyi byt, in the late 1920s which honored a New Soviet Person emerging from the

industrial proletariat, “the victorious class,” (Attwood 26). (Likely, another effort to incentivize

productivity.) Women, in particular, were the principal targets of the government sponsored campaigns

about the new byt, mostly because “they had primary responsibility for all domestic matters, and had the

most to gain from the new byt,” (Attwood 64). For, “what was needed was to fight for the liberation of

man — and more particularly, given the conventional gendering of this discourse, woman from the

bondage of things and to foster social/public forms of byt.” (Siegelbaum 151). Certainly, however, the

campaigns were meant to subdue loyal socialists’ complaints of contradictory figures to socialist ideals
 Spencer 5!

and quell Stalin’s fear of opposition. Logically, Stalin had the most to fear from women’s petty bourgeois

habits, particularly in case of the housewife because of their contradictions threatening his legitimacy.

This weaponization of material privilege worked because “the soviet relationship with fashion embodied

all the contradictions of the post-revolutionary utopian fervor,” (Bartlett 13).

The image of the “parasite housewife,” became particularly popular in the latter half of the 1930s,

when many women who had taken on work in addition to domestic duties identified a double standard in

non-working housewives. The double standard was apparent because of the sense of privilege imbued in

only having to work one job of the “double shift.” In a primary example found in a particularly renowned

women’s magazine at the time, Rabotnitsa (Fig 3), when one reader “Mariya S.” confessed that she “did

not work, letters poured in from furious readers denouncing her as a parasite who placed concern for

herself and her own family above the social good,” (Edmonson 165). Women did not choose, but had the

obligation to combine both family life with social production during the time. According to those that

responded to Mariya S, “other women managed it, and it was simply selfishness that prevented her from

doing the same,” (Edmonson 165). This view was not only seen from other women, but even from

Aleksandra Kollontai, the director of the communist party’s Women’s Department (Zhenotdel). Kollontai

condemned what she referred to as, “doll-parasites”: “Motherhood repulses them; housework they leave

to the servant. As for participating in public life and socialist construction, they don’t want to, don’t know

how to, and cannot,” (Siegelbaum 110). And, the sartorial image of the housewife depicted them with

philistinism, succumbing to “fashion slavery,” (Siegelbaum 161) 1. Thus, to even the government the

housewife was “‘an incomparable…danger,’ to soviet power,” (Siegelbaum 110). Thus, housewives that

did not work full time jobs, attempt to support themselves, actively try to ameliorate society, and did

appreciate material privileges were discredited. Thus, Stalin, through the promotion of the “parasite

housewife” figure, actively attempted to discredit their nostalgia for capitalism. He displaced from the

government, and then weaponized, the anger of the working women’s “double shift” to fight opposition to

his rule.

1 Actual data proving the housewife’s affinity to fashion items over the rest of the masses is slim, but the evidence of satirical distortion remains.
Particularly, the government’s response to the satirical depictions.
 Spencer 6!

Corroborating this methodology, Stalin also utilized the desire for and collection of privileged

goods as evidence of opposition to the Socialist Revolutionary Party. He used material privilege as an

example of treason to justify actions in the Great Purges of the late 1930s, “when disgraced high officials,

[were then] identified as ‘enemies of the people,’ were accused of building themselves expensive dachas,

and cultivating a luxurious lifestyle of banquets, cars, foreign consumer goods, and expensive

clothes,” (Fitzpatrick 457). Thus, for being rewarded by the meritocratic consumption system Stalin

enacted, the bureaucratic elite was de-legitimized, some even killed. This weaponization worked because

“the soviet relationship with fashion embodied all the contradictions of the post-revolutionary utopian

fervor,” (Bartlett 13). Ultimately, Stalin’s ability to utilize privileged goods as evidence enough for

treason proves the immense semiotic value of privileged luxuries like fashion.

Control: Surveillance in the Public Sphere

Secondly, in order to surveil the figure of the urban housewife Stalin promoted communal living

and spurred them to get involved in activism: thus, recognizing the obshchestvennitsa, or activist

housewife movement. Communal living was dreamt of by Lenin, but the evolution of all families into

communal apartments was less practical than idealistic. Construction of buildings such as the Narcomfin

in Moscow happened, but the housing shortages in the early 1930s inevitably led to dual-family

apartments regardless. Thus, the private sphere was almost completely demolished, diminishing the

necessity of the housewife to remain in the private sphere. For, “because she did not engage with the

world beyond her own family, she lacked social orientation and was unable to follow even the basic rules

of socialist life,” (Attwood 135). Thus, the communal apartments (Fig. 3) became a “zone of mutual

visibility,” between families, where everything was subject to supervision or another’s gaze. Thus,

communal living was an attempt to surveil the urban housewife for rebellious behavior indicative of her

nostalgia. Further, by the “communal effort” of housework propagandized by the government was meant

to entice her to productivity and “social orientation.” However, this attempt at surveillance through

communal living did not entirely rid urban society of the housewife because of the pre-Revolutionary

patriarchal ideals simultaneously existing with socialist principles. Instead, it resulted in communal

housewife squabbles, and the “pettiness of these squabbles was illustrated by a number of case studies,”

illustrated in Rabotnitsa (Attwood 135). For example, “citizen Ponkova quarreled with her neighbor
 Spencer 7!

Gerasimenko over a nail in the kitchen table. Ponkova insisted that Gerasimenko had hammered it in on

purpose. Having torn her dress on this ill-fated nail, Ponkova threw herself on her neighbor and beat her

with her fists,” (Attwood 135). While the squabbles aided in Stalin’s party gaining information on

particular citizens, because they often escalated to surveillance reports. However, the common squabbles

between housewives, while irritating, did not push the housewives out of the home towards active

involvement in quotidian socialist revolution; ultimately, more was needed from Stalin to sway the

“dangerous” figure.

Arguably, one of the most important attempts to surveil the housewives was to call upon them to

take an active role in society; thus, forming the obshchestvennitsa, or activist housewife movement. In

order to conform to social pressures from other women and respond to government propaganda, the

obshchestvennitsa took on activism to avoid the critical title dispersed in the media of “parasite

housewife.” The women began to take on voluntary social service work by organizing and supervising

clinics, day-care centers, and cafeterias. They attempted to entice and inspire other housewives to get

involved in the community, (ironically asserting their privilege because they worked for no pay.) They

also provided a “cultured” touch to Soviet daily life, arranging concerts, hanging curtains in workers’

dormitories, and overseeing “discussion circles” (kruzhki) on a range of topics. These women became the

“taste” creators of the public spheres, for wives of one factory even “decorated a hall and other rooms,

acquired furniture, curtains, carpets, a piano, and over 6000 books” (Buckley 575). They added clean

tables, clothes, and flowers to the gloomy world of socialist productivity. They acted as the cultural

creators at large: setting precedents for the New Soviet Person. These women were held up by the

government as “model wives, mothers, and homemakers” (Steigelbaum 108).

The obshchestvennitsa were able to “stand together with their husbands as active builders of

socialism,” (Steigelbaum 108). While some criticized the necessity of the role in the first place, stating

“the wives of engineering-technical workers have got nothing to do… they walk about the shop floor and

watch,” this movement promoted the “social orientation” the government claimed the housewives lacked

(Buckley 577). But, most importantly, it brought the threat of the urban housewife into the public sphere.

Thus, by forcing her into society, Stalin was able to monitor her for bad habits or opposition. And,

through involvement, he was able to attribute to the housewife something they so desperately desired:
 Spencer 8!

identity. Yet, he was ultimately misguided in continuing to connect their identity with that of their

husbands.

Sway: “Figured Worlds”

Yet, the most peculiar phenomenon surrounding the discourse of urban housewives, was not that

Stalin felt immensely threatened directly by the group, but that he was threatened by the influence they

had on their husbands. For example, “wives of the Red Army officers…forced their husbands to undergo

church weddings, suffer icons in the home, and squander time and resources seeking out perfumes, frilly

dresses, and restaurant meals,” (Siegelbaum 110). Apparently, this so exponentially affected the morale of

officers that younger, unmarried officers, would accuse older married ones of not wholeheartedly

“supporting the Red Army cause” (ibid). Unfortunately, the cognitive dissonance created in the minds of

the officers caused a seeming “epidemic of officer suicides,” (Siegelbaum 110). For, “those pre-

Revolutionary teacups and ancient wooden dolls were the monsters brought forth by the Sleep of Reason.

In just such an interior he might dream himself menaced by jellyfish tentacles of silk lampshades, and

losing consciousness in the suffocating embrace of bourgeois cushions,” (Siegelbaum 150).

Thus, Stalin not only used fashion and luxury to discredit and resolve opposition, but, in the late

1930s, also to take control of, and reframe, the semiotics of material privilege. Material items, such as

fashion, became a mechanism for Stalin to control and legitimize his rule. He created “figured

worlds,” (Mukerji 408) or fantasies made out of symbols and the material environment, in pockets of

Soviet life in order to mobilize particular subcultural groups to increase productivity for progress under

his rule. These “figured worlds” were a clear example of “Socialist Realism: the celebration of life as it

should be, not as it was,” (Attwood 132). Through the creation of these “figured worlds,” Stalin utilized

an approach similar to soft power: a power which “wields the force of attraction… entices, enlisting

through intangibles like culture, values, belief systems, and perceived moral authority,” (Castillo 2010).

The reach of the press certainly aided him in this enticement, but he also targeted specific subcultures

such as the obshchestvennitsa. Perhaps, his “figured worlds” were aimed at the subcultural groups he felt

had the most threat to his authority.

Crucial to understanding how Stalin attempted to motivate the obshchestvennitsa with “figured

worlds,” it is necessary to look at the rise of their husbands, the stakhanovites, or “star shock
 Spencer 9!

worker(s),” (Bartlett 68). The stakhanovites were a meritocratically privileged class “for individuals who

worked the hardest to build the new society, and an exceptional attire was one of the most valued prizes

these workers could receive for their extraordinary efforts,” (Bartlett 66). At the beginning of the 1930s,

restricted-access stores began selling to only elite members, only those Stakhanovites “on the list,” which

meant “privileged access to the goods in state warehouses — consolidated,” (Fitzpatrick 10). The

introduction of Stalin’s Dom Modelei of Moscow (House of Prototypes) in 1935 was meant to inspire

hope for the future of socialism through the promise of curated “taste” and return of material privilege.

Further, “photographs presenting the real dresses gave the impression that they could soon be mass

produced and arrive in the nearest shop,” (Figs. 4-8)(Bartlett 72). While Stalin’s collectivization effort on

agriculture imperiled the food supply, “the accompanying squeeze on artisans and craftsmen was

producing other critical shortages…leather goods, including shoes vanished from the market after the

mass slaughter of animals by peasants…there were no buttons, needles, and thread,” (Fitzpatrick 12).

Even in private tailoring, which was reintroduced under Stalin, “one had to provide one’s own buttons and

thread, as well as cloth, in order to have a suit made,” (Fitzpatrick 12). In one Rabotnitsa report, a woman

by the name of Semyonova stated, “we have only to go into the shops and stores selling ready-made

clothes to be convinced that the products of, for instance, the Industrial Cooperatives leave much to be

desired,” (Meek 36). Thus, the introduction of the Dom Modelei of Moscow gave the obshchestvennitsa

hope in the future of bolstering their identities through material items from stakhanovites’ rewards. For,

any access to abnormal items during this time was a translated into cultural superiority through expression

of identity in access to material privilege.

The newfound enthusiasm of urban housewives transforming into obshchestvennitsa for the

socialist cause coincidentally aligned to the time period just after Stalin launched the host of concessions

to the stakhanovites. Perhaps, a calculated means to an end. The obshchestvennitsa, thus, regained their

“lost” privilege in socialism through the rewards of their husbands. Stalin must have realized the

importance of displaying femininity, and identity, to women like the urban housewife because of the Red

Army complaints; and, often recorded in narratives was the insecurity of women unable to express

traditional femininity due to the lack of fashionable goods available on the market. As one example, in

Aleksandra Kollantai’s novel, Vasilisa Malygina published in 1923, “proletarian heroine Vasilisa loses her
 Spencer 1! 0

Communist husband to the frivolous and fashionably dressed Nina Konstantinovna, whom Vasilisa’s

friend Lisa describes as incredibly beautiful, incredibly well dressed, always wearing silk, and always

surrounded by admirers,” (Bartlett 34). Thus, Stalin allowed an aesthetic return to conventional femininity

in fashion through tacit deals with his cadres as a means to legitimize his rule and “buy” the support of the

housewife through her husband’s productivity.

In turn for the rewards, Stalin wanted the obshchestvennitsa to rally and motivate their husbands.

Ultimately, Stalin was desperate enough to stimulate production that he attempted to permeate the support

system of the stakhanovites. Party leaders “fostered this sentiment, especially in the wives of

stakhanovites. At First Krai Conference of Stakhanovite Wives of the Northern Krai, held in 1936, Krai

First Secretary D. Kontorin told the women present: You, as helpers of your husbands, of Stakhanovites,

of honoured people in our country, must show how you surround the stakhanovite with care and attention

and create for him comfortable, cultured and happy leisure time at home” (Ilic 156). Wives were expected

to battle against “uncultured” behavior at their husbands’ workplace and at home. Accordingly, the

“obshchestvennitsa had a rich variety of perform; and that husbands could benefit from morally superior

female guidance prevent them from lapsing into degenerate behaviour. Thus obshchestvennitsa versatile

in her contribution to building socialism and also a moral guide inspiration,” (Ilic 158). One wife of an

industrial specialist in Udarnitsa Urala was quoted, “all my dreams are connected with the work of my

husband, for whom I want to be the first and best helper,” (Buckley 572). Thus, the “advanced” status

conferred on wives of leaders of heavy industry, (the obshchestvennitsa) was in actuality acquired from

their husbands, not from their own self-determination (Ilic 156). However, by their benefit from the

meritocracy, Stalin indeed attempted to spur the housewife into socialist involvement as an assistant to the

stakhanovites’ increased production capitalizing upon their dreams of distinction, yet simultaneously

pushing them away from socialist ethicality.

However, the obshchestvennitsa soon became jaded of Stalin’s myth of “figured worlds.” For,

unable to secure the rewards of the stakhanovites themselves, their reliance on their husbands to gain

rewards was not a guarantee of them. Further, the Dom Modelei, or house of prototypes, functioned as

exactly that. The fashions were not ultimately accessible to the bodies of the women for which they were

advertised. The figure of the obshchestvennitsa fit precisely into the targeted audiences of the Dom
 Spencer 1! 1

Modelei, a woman intensely regulated through an opinionated media, a judgmental regime, and the

imposition of contradictory socialist and patriarchal ideologies. Yet, the Dom Modelei could only function

as an escapist world rather than an attainable reality.

The Obshchestvennitsa in Agency

Once Stalin believed that he had resolved the contradiction of the figure of the housewife in

society by energizing her into activism and providing her with escapism, he left her alone,

underestimating the influence she had in the public sphere. For the obshchestvennitsa “agitated the system

where, when, and how she felt inspired to do so, with mixed results,” (Buckley 570). The reason she was

able to do so was because “paradoxically, she often worked independently from political controls because

the controllers, in their ‘political blindness,’ had chosen to ignore her” once putting her to work (Buckley

570). The imposition of regulation on the bodies of the housewives, and the tease of the Dom Modelei,

prompted them to find their own means to distinction of identity. Stalin’s “concessions” unleashed a form

of political rebellion by enlightening the obshchestvennitsa to the material life they could not ultimately

live. Thus, in response the obshchestvennitsa took the independence bestowed to them and resorted to

different methods of identity creation. Because they were unable to achieve stakhanovite status

themselves without joining the workforce, and were still subjected to traditional patriarchal ideals, they

were caught in a position of reliance. This reliance, however, they challenged by finding new ways to

independently obtain, create, and display their material identities. Thus, through this, the figure of the

obshchestvennitsa rebelled against the regime both privately and publicly through fashion. The

obshchestvennitsa ritualized sewing as a means to display taste, networked to gain access to desired

goods, and participated in the shadow economy. Acquiring fashionable objects became a “way of

constituting your self-hood against a regime you despised,” (Roberts 16). For the women with the least

self-hood in a cycle of reliance and criticism, material objects became a signifier of identity for the

obshchestvennitsa. Perhaps, if Stalin had resolved the true problem of their identity by disassociating

them from their husbands, he could have avoided their micro-rebellion. For, he only saw the subculture as

an influential tool to the psyche of the stakhanovites.

In order to explain the way the obshchestvennitsa exemplified rebellion to the regime through

consumption, it is first necessary to position what was illegal. Stalin had reintroduced privatized light
 Spencer 1! 2

industry, private artisan craft, and had encouraged women’s domestic sewing. However, rations still

existed and bartering as well as reselling was prohibited. Speculation, or buying and reselling with the

intention of making a profit, was outlawed in every Soviet criminal code. The law prohibited the sale of

any items that were not secondhand, considering the sale of new products to be “speculation,” (Osokina

176) However, “speculation became one of the most widespread economic crimes of the

1930s,” (Osokina 192). While the figure of the Fartsovshchik, or black market dealer (Fig ), was not yet

colloquial, similar operations existed. For example, “A machinist from the Lubertsy factory, Ianbaev had

a license that allowed him to produce skirts. He sold his products illegally in the market, earning about

20,000 rubles per year, while his annual salary as a machinist brought him only 3,600,” (Osokina 187).

Further, “THE NKVD [interior ministry] uncovered a private underground firm that produced gloves. The

firm consisted of sixteen organizers who had licenses for individual craftwork and about forty hired

workers without licenses. During the arrest, the NKVD confiscated two thousand kid gloves and a

quantity of leather with a total value of 70,000 rubles,” (Osokina 188). Not only were the producers at

risk for these illegal activities, but enforcement permeated into the consumer sector.

Yet, this regulation did not deter the obshchestvennitsa from fulfilling their desires. The

housewives took the problem of taste into their own hands. The women repurposed the “Red Corner,” or a

physical space in homes that was meant to honor images of Lenin, to repair and revitalize clothing when

they could not obtain the latest luxuries (Fig. 4). By using it sew and do handicrafts, women resisted the

state intrusion and subverted the meaning of the physical space. By doing so, they reinstated the

demarcation of boundaries into the home. They ritualized the activity of sewing, fostering creation in the

“gray” world. They created a connection with material objects potentially stronger than the connection

with store-bought. For, in the hand sewn realm, they worked for their distinction, thus meaning was

imbued in each stitched seam. While usually a license would be necessary to sell their hand-made

creations, some obshchestvennitsa illegally sold and bartered their sewing skills. Confirming the

promulgation of this trend, Rabotnitsa began adding dress patterns to their issues in order to assist

domestic craft. The patterns often mirrored and advertised their acceptability by comparing the styles to

Western fancies. Ironically, the same magazine that criticized the figure of the housewife, Rabotnitsa,

allowed her to distinguish herself in emulation of trend. This form of rebellion was more ideological, for
 Spencer 1! 3

the ritualization of sewing created a commodity fetishism, in which the hand-crafted created a

“phantasmagorical relationship with things,” (Marx 2). The social relationship of the woman as producer

mirrored in the clothing was of itself a private rebellion.

Not only in ritualization of domestic sewing and selling their crafts did the obshchestvennitsa

rebel, but also in the form of networking. Bartering was illegal during the time, but often “enterprises

illegally scrapped part of their production, often registering as “defective” to prevent the state from taking

it,” (Osokina 196). The so-called defective products were sold or traded illegally for other items, often to

trustworthy friends or close acquaintances. Thus, the social and kinship connections that the

obshchestvennitsa fostered in entering the social sphere allowed them to access means to obtaining the

material objects and fashions they desired, and in turn allowed them to parade their cultural superiority in

finding a way around legality.

Stalin had found a way to exploit the influence of urban housewives on the productive capacities

of their husbands, while simultaneously instilling in them a sense of purpose. However, Stalin’s Faustian

bargain backfired. While he advertised his intent was to resolve the contradictions that the figure of the

housewife posed to socialist society, his underlying motive was in fact to incentivize male productivity

through female desire in order to legitimize his rule. However, by enticing them with still limited

consumer choice and strengthening their reliance on their husbands for access, Stalin failed to recognize

the longer term implications of false promises of “figured worlds.” Further, he underestimated their

agency in rebellion when the glimmer of newness of “figured worlds” such as the Dom Modelei faded.

While simultaneously regulated by reliance, the housewife was freed to participate in activism. Yet, her

role proved not only to contribute to society, but also to critique it. By “attempting to colonize or

eliminate” the private sphere, Stalin instead gave the figure of the housewife more power than he had

intended in the expansion of the private (Siegelbaum 14). For, when she could not obtain that with which

she was enticed, she created her own way to satisfy her desire and reconcile her identity.
 Spencer 1! 4

Figures

1. Vasili Efanov, an Unforgettable Meeting (1937). Oil on canvas, 270 x 391 cm. State Tret’iakov Gallery.

2. Labor Defender, November 1929.

 Spencer 1! 5

3. A kitchen in a communal apartment, Nikolay Nikitin/TASS.

5. Dress designed by Nadezhda Makarova; drawing by M. Rodinov, Dom Modelei, Moscow (1936, no. 1)
 Spencer 1! 6

6. Catalog, The Leningrad Riot Front fur company, 1935-37.

7. Catalog, the Leningrad Riot Front fur company, 1936-37.

 Spencer 1! 7

8. Outfits by F. Gorelenkova (left) and S. Topleniov (right), Dom Modelei, Moscow (1935, no. 1)

9. Dresses designed by E. Raizman (left) and N. Marakova (right), Dom Modelei, Moscow (1936, no. 1)
 Spencer 1! 8

9. “Red Corner” depiction. 1957 L. Muuga Women sewing Sew Socialist realism, postcard.
 Spencer 1! 9

Bibliography

Archives, Russian. “COLLECTIVIZATION AND INDUSTRIALIZATION: Revelations from

the Russian Archives.” Library of Congress, 2016,
www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/coll.html.
Attwood, Lynne, et al. Gender and Housing in Soviet Russia: Private Life in a Public Space.
Manchester University Press, 2010. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt155j7bz.
Daunton, M. J., and Matthew Hilton. The Politics of Consumption : Material Culture and
Citizenship in Europe and America, Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, 2001.
Edmondson, Linda H. Gender in Russian History and Culture. Houndmills, Palgrave/Centre for
Russian and East European Studies, University of Birmingham, 2001. Print.
Fehervary, Krisztina. “Goods and States: The Political Logic of State-Socialist Material Culture.”
Comparative Studies in Society and History 51(2): 2009. 426-459.
Fitzpatrick, Sheila. Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times : Soviet Russia in
the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Internet resource.
Fitzpatrick, Sheila. “New Perspectives on Stalinism.” The Russian Review, vol. 45, no. 4, 1986,
pp. 357–373. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/130466.
Gurova, Olga. “The art of dressing: Body, gender and discourse on fashion in Soviet Russia in
the 1950s and the 1960s, in The Fabric of Cultures.” Fashion, Identity, GlobalizationThe
Fabric of Cultures. Fashion, Identity, Globalization. Ed. by Paulicelli E. & H. Clark.
London, New York: Routledge, 2009. P. 73-91
Ilic, M. Women in the Stalin Era. Place of publication not identified: PALGRAVE
MACMILLAN, 2015. Print.
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, Ernest Mandel, and Ben Fowkes. Capital: A Critique of Political
Economy. London: Penguin in association with New Left Review, 1990. Print.
Meek, Dorothea L. “A Soviet Women's Magazine.” Soviet Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, 1952, pp. 32–
47. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/148721.
Miliukov P. N. Outlines of Russian Culture. Academic International Press, 1974.
Osokina, Elena. “CHAPTER SIX Economic Disobedience under Stalin,” in Lynne Viola’s
Contending with Stalinism : Soviet Power and Popular Resistance in the 1930s; 170;
ITHACA; LONDON : Cornell University Press, 2018
Roberts, Graham H., editor. Material Culture in Russia and the USSR: Things, Values, Identities.
Bloomsbury Academic/Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018.
Roberts, Graham H. Consumer Culture, Branding and Identity in the New Russia: From Five-
Year Plan to 4x4. , 2016. Internet resource.
Siegelbaum, Lewis H. Borders of Socialism: Private Spheres of Soviet Russia. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Internet resource.