Down with the collective farms! We are for the collective farms. (B.Efimov) Soviet Posters (1917-1941)

The artwork presents a stark visual dichotomy framed within a propagandistic structure. Here we observe two figures positioned side-by-side, each embodying opposing stances on collectivization. The left figure is depicted in a grotesque caricature – bloated face, exaggerated features, and a manic grin revealing prominent teeth. He clutches a trumpet, from which emanates the phrase Down with the collective farms! His posture suggests an almost hysterical rejection of the system. The clothing – a dark cap and suit – hints at a former status or privilege now disrupted by the collectivization policies.
In contrast, the figure on the right is rendered in a more idealized manner. He possesses a leaner physique, a determined expression, and holds aloft a sheaf of wheat. A banner proclaiming We are for the collective farms extends from his hand. His attire – a worker’s cap and simple clothing – symbolizes his embrace of the new agricultural order. The overall impression is one of robust health and purposeful action.
The composition employs a deliberate asymmetry to reinforce this ideological contrast. The left figure occupies a more chaotic space, with swirling lines emanating from his trumpet, visually representing disruption and dissent. Conversely, the right figure stands within a calmer, more ordered area, suggesting stability and progress.
A block of text is positioned behind each figure, further elaborating on the respective viewpoints. The text associated with the left figure appears to denounce the imposed policies as artificial and manipulative. The text accompanying the right figure promotes collectivization as a necessary step towards modernization and prosperity, attributed to Stalin’s leadership.
The artworks subtext lies in its exploration of forced acceptance versus genuine enthusiasm for collectivization. It suggests an internal conflict within society – a resistance rooted in past experiences or perceived losses juxtaposed with the official narrative of progress and collective benefit. The exaggerated features and theatrical poses point towards a deliberate attempt to sway public opinion, portraying dissent as irrationality and conformity as virtue. The work functions not merely as a depiction but as a persuasive tool designed to solidify support for Stalin’s agricultural policies during a period of significant social upheaval.