How Did Soviet Russia Use Architecture to Reinforce Power Between 1917 and 1939?

The period leading up to 1917 marked a complex relationship between the Russian populace and its ruling institutions. Widespread disease, famine, and death under the Tsarist regime created a landscape of repression and serfdom. In response, Soviet planners sought to reconstruct a nation that reflected the ideals of a new political order. Soviet architecture became a visual and ideological departure from the “medieval” and “outdated” legacy of imperial Russia, symbolising progress, modernity, and collective empowerment. As Dmitry Shvidkovskiĭ notes, Soviet architecture served as a response to the failures of the past and a projection of a hopeful future [Shvidkovskiĭ, Russian Architecture and the West, 2007, p.386].Architects like Konstantin Melnikov and Boris Mihailovich Iofan were instrumental in creating structures that projected state power and socialist ideals. From Melnikov’s Rusakov Workers’ Club to Iofan’s design for the Palace of the Soviets, these buildings were not only functional spaces but also ideological tools. They demonstrated a transition from Constructivism—a movement grounded in material functionality and geometric abstraction—to Soviet Realism, which emphasised narrative grandeur and glorification of the proletariat [Shvidkovskiĭ, 2007, p.387].This chapter explores how Soviet architecture between 1917 and 1939 manifested and reinforced state power, focusing on two case studies: one Constructivist and one Stalinist. It applies theoretical frameworks from Chapter 2, particularly Foucault's concepts of heterotopia, visibility, spatial order, and material symbolism. The goal is not to exhaustively identify every method of power but to critically assess whether architectural design embodied and reinforced Soviet ideological goals.

Case Study 1: Rusakov Workers’ Club, Moscow (Konstantin Melnikov, 1928)

(5.1) Timelessness – HeterotopiaConstructed in 1928, the Rusakov Workers’ Club symbolised the Soviet state’s commitment to the working class. Designed in a distinct Constructivist style, the building provided spaces for education, leisure, ideological lectures, and community gatherings [Siegelbaum, 1999, p.79]. Though it is unlikely that Melnikov intentionally followed Foucault’s theory of heterotopia, the building embodies a timeless, ideologically charged space.The club’s design reflected Gestalt principles of perception—simplicity, symmetry, and similarity—suggesting a holistic, people-centric view of architecture [Douglas, 2013]. Rejecting bourgeois excess and ornamentation, the club’s straightforward design echoed Marxist ideals, where function, not luxury, guided architectural form [Shlomo, 2012, p.67]. This aligns with Foucault’s idea of timeless spaces that evoke collective emotion and reinforce ideology through their structural language.

(5.2) Power of MaterialsConstructed with concrete, brick, and glass, the Rusakov Workers’ Club starkly contrasted with its Tsarist-era surroundings. Its prominent modern façade—with large overhangs and glass planes—served as a visual rupture in the architectural fabric of Moscow. While no direct evidence indicates local reactions, the use of modern materials likely acted as a deliberate visual cue of the new regime’s power and technological prowess [ArchDaily, 2017].

(5.3) Spatial Analysis – Corridors and RoomsThe building’s design placed the speaker at the centre of the main auditorium, surrounded by the audience at the periphery. This spatial organisation emphasised ideological hierarchy, where visibility equated to authority [Hudson, 1994, p.45]. Melnikov’s use of geometric forms, such as circles for acoustics and rectangles for flexible seating, reflected Constructivist pragmatism while reinforcing the importance of centralised state messaging.

(5.4) Spatial Analysis – DoorsThe absence of a backstage area was deliberate. Melnikov stated that "every activity in the club should be openly demonstrated in front of the public’s eye" [Han-Magomedov, 2006, p.330]. This open-space layout aligned with Soviet ideals of transparency and unity. Yet, the inclusion of moveable walls allowed for spatial manipulation—altering audience perception of popularity and control [Johnson, 2016, p.416]. Thus, architecture subtly influenced perceptions of ideological engagement.

Case Study 2: Palace of the Soviets (Boris Iofan, 1937 Design)

(5.5) HeterotopiaThe Palace of the Soviets was conceived as the grandest architectural project in Soviet history. Planned for the site of the demolished Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, it was intended as a monumental symbol of Communist supremacy [Vale, 2008, p.30]. Though never completed, its proposed features—including a 100-metre statue of Lenin—suggested a secular temple to Soviet ideology [RussiaTrek, 2017].The Palace exemplifies Foucault’s concept of heterotopia: a symbolic space set apart from ordinary urban life, encapsulating past, present, and future. The towering statue of Lenin, reminiscent of the Statue of Liberty, would have redefined the Moscow skyline as a beacon of proletarian enlightenment [Vale, 1992, p.41]. The symbolic replacement of a religious site with a political monument illustrated the regime’s attempt to substitute spiritual faith with ideological fervour.

(5.6) Power of MaterialsDesigned with granite, concrete, and steel, the building’s monumental size and materiality would have overshadowed the surrounding urban landscape. The extensive resources required for its construction symbolised the economic might and centralised power of the Soviet regime [Hutter, 2016, p.214]. Its sheer scale was a deliberate statement of dominance—an architectural act of ideological theatre.

(5.7) Spatial Analysis – Corridors and RoomsSituated centrally in Moscow, the Palace’s location implied national centrality and political control. The main theatre was to place the speaker—presumably a state figure—at its heart, reinforcing hierarchical visibility and ideological authority [Ryan, 2012, p.44]. The stage was not just functional but symbolic, where public spectacle met political narrative.

(5.8) Spatial Analysis – DoorsUnlike Melnikov’s club, the Palace likely included backstage areas, suggesting a shift toward controlled, less transparent spatial configurations [Hoberman, 1998, p.24]. Although speculative, this design evolution might reflect a change in how the regime viewed its relationship with the people—from open participation to orchestrated presentation. The use of enclosed, hierarchical space would symbolise a maturing, centralised state apparatus.

Conclusion
Architecture in Soviet Russia between 1917 and 1939 was a powerful tool for reinforcing state ideology. Through the Constructivist Rusakov Workers’ Club and the monumental plans for the Palace of the Soviets, we see a transformation in architectural approaches—from pragmatic, community-oriented designs to grand symbols of state power and permanence. Applying theoretical frameworks from Chapter 2, these buildings demonstrate the use of spatial organisation, material selection, and symbolic form to project power and unify society under a singular ideological narrative. Whether through the openness of Melnikov’s design or the grandeur of Iofan’s vision, Soviet architecture served not merely to house the people, but to shape and govern them.