Why was there censorship in Soviet Union
What this page covers
Why was there censorship in Soviet Union
The Red New Deal looks at Soviet censorship through everyday life, not just official slogans. It shows how power, fear, and ideology shaped what people were allowed to say, read, and think, and how quickly a wrong word could threaten a job, a career, or even freedom.
Instead of painting the USSR as purely good or evil, the book explains how arguments about class, nation, and “universal human” ideals were used to justify control over information. That context helps explain why certain views were silenced, why loyalty to the regime mattered so much, and how censorship became a normal part of daily life.
In brief
- The book shows that in Soviet-style systems, social belonging and loyalty to the regime were often more important than individual rights or open debate, which encouraged tight control over acceptable opinions.
- It explores how official ideas about class and the “universal human” could be turned into tools for policing thought, defining which perspectives were legitimate and which were treated as hostile to the system.
- By grounding these themes in concrete examples from Soviet-era Belarus and beyond, The Red New Deal helps readers see how legal rules, careers, and even personal safety were shaped by what the state allowed people to think and say.
What to do
The Red New Deal does not offer a simple checklist of reasons for Soviet censorship. Instead, it invites readers to look at how power worked in practice. In the author’s account of Soviet Belarus, your future did not depend mainly on talent or education. What mattered most was being of the right “color,” meaning reliably “red” in your social belonging and loyalty. In such an environment, controlling speech and ideas was a way to sort people into insiders and outsiders.
The book also highlights how official ideology could shift and still be used to justify control. One example discussed is Mikhail Gorbachev’s embrace of “Universal Human Rights” and the belief that there was no longer a proletariat or bourgeoisie, only a universal human. The author presents this as a misleading turn that weakened the Soviet project, showing how even language about universal humanity could be deployed from above rather than emerging from free public discussion.
Alongside ideology, The Red New Deal points to concrete rules that limited people’s autonomy. In Soviet law, even self-defense was tightly constrained: you were required to use means of defense that were not greater than those of your assailant. Practices like karate were outlawed, and people could go to jail simply for teaching or learning martial arts. These examples illustrate a broader pattern in which the state sought to keep citizens dependent and manageable, reinforcing a culture where independent organization and dissenting ideas were treated with suspicion.
What to keep in mind
The book’s treatment of Soviet control is grounded in specific, sometimes stark, realities. In Soviet-era Belarus, for example, there were about 360 judges, and every one of them was described as being of the correct political “color,” namely “red.” That detail shows how deeply political loyalty penetrated institutions that, in other systems, might be expected to act independently. When the same logic is applied to media, education, and culture, it helps explain why open disagreement with the regime was so constrained.
The Red New Deal also underscores that official narratives about identity and history were not neutral. One cited argument stresses that the USSR presented itself as guaranteeing each ethnic group something close to an ethnostate and as the high point of Slavic power, especially in contrast to Hitler’s plans to exterminate Slavs and to earlier German-dominated Russian dynasties. Whether or not readers agree with this framing, the example shows how historical claims were used to rally support and to mark out who was considered an ally or an enemy.
At the same time, the book is careful to show that these justifications had limits and consequences. The author notes that some of the arguments used to defend the Soviet system can sound harsh or “nasty,” even if they are presented as factual. By juxtaposing ideological claims, legal constraints, and personal stories, The Red New Deal encourages readers to think critically about how regimes use both fear and pride to manage public opinion, and what that meant for people living under Soviet rule.