«Bourgeois Mire`: why Soviet censorship banned Chukovsky's “Mуха-Цокотуха”

One of the most popular children's poems, which every child knows by heart today, was suspected by Soviet officials and educators at the moment of its birth. Chukovsky's “Mуха-Цокотуха”, written in 1923, did not simply fail to reach the reader immediately — it was officially banned by censorship and subjected to destructive criticism from the highest authorities. Why did such an innocent story about a fly finding money and throwing a party provoke such anger in the party circles? And how did this little masterpiece survive in the face of ideological pressure?

The first publication and immediate scandal

In 1923, Korней Chukovsky first read his new story to friends and acquaintances. The audience was delighted: rhythmic lines, vivid images, resounding rhymes — it seemed that this was the ideal reading for babies. However, the first attempt to publish “Mуха-Цокотуха” encountered an insurmountable obstacle. The Provincial Department of Literature and Publishing (Gublit), performing the functions of censorship, categorically refused to grant permission for publication. In Chukovsky's diary, there is a record of a conversation with the employee of Gublit Lyudmila Byストrova, who explained to the writer that the illustrations to the story were “improper”: the mosquito is standing too close to the fly, they “flirt”. “As if there is a child so decadent that the closeness of the fly to the mosquito would provoke licentious thoughts,” Chukovsky wrote with bitterness. But this was only the beginning.

In 1924, the story finally saw the light — but under the changed title “Muhina svadba” and with cuts. However, this version did not give peace to the ideological guardians. The real campaign against “Mуха-Цокотуха” was launched later, and it involved not ordinary censors, but the most influential figures in Soviet pedagogy and politics.

The attack of Krupskaya: “chukovщина” as an ideological enemy

The main accuser of Kornej Chukovsky was Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya, the widow of Lenin. She was not just the wife of the leader — she stood at the origins of the Soviet system of national education and upbringing. And her opinion about children's books had great weight. Krupskaya poured out her criticism of Chukovsky, calling his tales “nonsense” and “disrespect to the child”. She claimed that Chukovsky's works were not only useless, but also harmful because they “do not reflect Soviet life”.

Even in the ranks of party critics and editors, a special term arose — “chukovщина”. This word denoted all the writer's creativity that was considered alien to the proletarian ideology. Krupskaya and her supporters blamed Chukovsky for the fact that “Mуха-Цокотуха” “undermines children's faith in the triumph of the collective”, it expresses “sympathy for kulak ideology”, it glorifies “bourgeoisie and kulak accumulation”. It seems, where in a children's story about a fly and a mosquito can one find kulaks? However, Soviet educators were able to read between the lines even that which was never there.

“Bourgeois” birthdays and suspicious weddings

One of the most absurd points of accusation was the word “namesday”. The deputy head of Gublit Lyudmila Byストrova explained to Chukovsky that namesdays were a “bourgeois festival”. In the new Soviet society, where the church was separated from the state, and old traditions were declared relics of the past, any mention of namesdays was perceived as an attempt “to keep the dying and outdated forms of life on the surface”. Namesdays are not just a birthday, but a festival associated with the Orthodox calendar, with the name of a saint. Therefore, everything associated with them automatically fell under suspicion.

However, the critics went further. The namesday in “Mуха-Цокотуха” ends with a wedding, and this also caused an angry reaction. “Literary Gazette” saw in the happy wedding of the mosquito and the mosquito an “idealization of the bourgeoisie”. One of the critics wrote: “What do these verses say? About the power of money.” Indeed, the story begins with the mosquito finding money and going to the market — according to the ideologists, the story teaches children “kulak accumulation” and glorifies private property. In a country where communism was being built, this was inexcusable.

A collective letter from the Kremlin kindergarten

The climax of the persecution was a collective letter published in 1929 in the journal “Preschool Education”. It was signed by “parents of students of the Kremlin kindergarten”. These were not ordinary people — they represented the elite of Soviet society, and their voice was extremely weighty. In the letter, they called for “fighting against chukovщина” and stated that all Chukovsky's stories were not only bad, but also harmful to children. They accused the author of the fact that his books “develop superstition and fears”, “glorify the bourgeoisie and kulak accumulation”, “give incorrect ideas about the world of animals and insects”.

For Chukovsky, this was a terrible blow. In his diary, he wrote: “So, my “Crocodile” is banned, “Mуха-Цокотуха” is banned, “Tarakanische” will be banned tomorrow.” One after another, his works were caught in the censorship press, even “Barmaley” and “Aybolit”.

Political undertones: the mosquito, the fly, and suspicious hints

A special piquancy to the situation was given by the fact that the censors saw a political subtext in the characters of the tale. According to Byストrova, Komarik was a “disguised prince”, and Mуха was a “princess”. This already sounded like anti-Soviet propaganda: since princes and princesses are symbols of monarchy, that old world which was destroyed by the revolution. It turned out that Chukovsky, without intending to, was propagating “bourgeois” values and idealizing the old order.

There was a joke going around among the people about how Chukovsky tried to publish “Mуха-Цокотуха”, coming for approval to each of the leaders. Lenin stopped him: “In the Soviet Union, a fly cannot go to the market!”; Stalin was angry that money was lying on the collective farm field; and Andropov interrupted before he could even read the first line: “What are you talking about the Central Committee?!” This joke, like any sharp folk creation, accurately reflected the absurdity of Soviet censorship, capable of seeing counter-revolution even in an innocent children's story.

“Mуха-Цокотуха” survives and becomes a classic

Despite all the bans and persecution, “Mуха-Цокотуха” survived. In 1927, the story was published under the modern title. Later, with the relaxation of censorship pressure in the 1960s, it was printed in mass editions and entered the golden fund of children's literature. Today it is hard to imagine that this cheerful, mischievous, musical tale was considered “bourgeois mire” and an instrument of the ideological enemy.

The story of “Mуха-Цокотуха” is a story of how literature can withstand the pressure of the system, even when it seems that all doors are closed. Chukovsky did not rewrite his stories to please the censorship, did not cross out “suspicious” bugs and did not replace “namesdays” with “birthday”. He just continued to write — for children, for eternity, for those who know how to hear in poetry not politics, but joy, fantasy and kindness. And today, when we read to children about the fly-цокотуха and her brave savior- mosquito, we even do not suspect that this little book had to pass through hell to get into our hands.

Permanent link to this publication: