Source 1 is from a textbook used to educate people in the Soviet Union in 1948. It is boasting about the tremendous success that socialism has had in the USSR, and how everyone except the “exploiting class” love it and have benefited from it. It also talks about the betterment of the Soviet Union because of the Great Purges and war communism finally being achieved. This source rejects liberalism because it is not stating the truth, but rather what the government allows the publishing agency of the textbook to say. There is no transparency towards the people by the government.
Source 2 is a confession by a Communist party activist, Lev Kopelev, in which he states the reality of what happened when farms were collectivized. He says that he took part in the complete transformation of the countryside and saw horrific things happening to those people, but convinced himself that it was necessary so the Soviet Union could flourish. The events described by the source is the persecution of the Kulaks that occurred while farms were collectivized. The government is ignoring the rights of these people by
…show more content…
The female shock-brigade is the centerpiece of the poster, symbolizing how strong and healthy the Russian people are due to the collectivization of farms, and how successful this collectivization has been in Russia. The shock-brigade is full of virility and is shown smirking, maybe even smiling. The Soviets are trying to demonstrate just how well they are doing compared to the United States, who are in the middle of the Great Depression at this time. In the background can also be seen how organized and industrialized the Russian method of collectivized farming are, and the surplus of grain that is being produced. This piece of propaganda rejects liberalism by telling the public lies. This lack of transparency completely opposes liberalist