Sandro Kasyanyuk: Enfant Terrible of Ukrainian Techno-Communism¶

Oleh Shynkarenko (Pécs)
SLAVIA časopis pro slovanskou filologii 94, 2025, 4
https://doi.org/10.58377/slav.2025.4.02

This article explores the literary works of Sandro Kasyanyuk, a Ukrainian science fiction writer from the 1920s. The paper examines how Kasyanyuk’s works depict Soviet techno-communism. The stories of Kasyanyuk show a strong belief in the ability of technology to change the world, sometimes ignoring the social and political effects. By exploring characters and themes, such as sexual dimension of machines, Kasyanyuk shows the optimism of the time about technology. The stories provide important insight into the Soviet beliefs in early 20^th-century Ukraine.

Keywords: positivism, techno-communism, Sandro Kasyanyuk, science fiction, Ukrainian literature

Introduction¶

This article examines the literary significance of Sandro Kasyanyuk, the first known Ukrainian science fiction writer, within the broader context of Soviet Ukraine during the 1920s. Through an analysis of his works, the article explores how Kasyanyuk’s stories reflect the interplay of literary expression, cultural transformation, and ideological influence in the early Soviet period. While rooted in the positivist and Marxist ideologies that characterized the era, Kasyanyuk’s works offer a unique lens through which to understand the literary and cultural aspirations of a society undergoing rapid industrialization and social upheaval. Despite his naive and fragmented storytelling, Kasyanyuk’s writings are significant for their reflection of “proletarian” literature’s attempt to reconcile artistic expression with political ideology.

The first part of the article provides a philosophical and historical overview, situating Kasyanyuk’s work within the context of the positivist thought, Marxist materialism, and the broader literary trends of the 1920s. The second part examines Kasyanyuk’s background as “a proletarian writer” and considers how his profession influenced his narrative style, use of spoken language, and thematic focus on industrialization. The third part offers a detailed analysis of key works with particular attention to their literary structure, character development, and symbolic use of machines as both technological marvels and anthropomorphized entities. The fourth part reviews the critical reception of Kasyanyuk’s works, exploring how contemporary and later critics interpreted his contributions to Ukrainian literature and science fiction.

By focusing on Kasyanyuk’s literary output, this article seeks to deepen the understanding of his place in Ukrainian literature, highlighting the complex interplay between ideology, artistic innovation, and cultural change during the early Soviet era.

From positivism to techno-communism¶

The project of Soviet modernization of the 1920s was based on a positivist program. Positivism is a philosophical approach that recognizes only empirical evidence and scientific methods in understanding the world: “Positivism confines itself to the data of experience and excludes a priori or metaphysical speculations” (Feigl 2025). It believes that knowledge should be based only on observed facts and logical reasoning.

Positivism and Marxism have several points in common:

Both positivism and Marxism are rooted in materialism, which emphasizes the study of real, observable phenomena rather than metaphysical or supernatural explanations.
They insist on a scientific method as the only valid approach to understanding the world.
Both theories are progressive, believing in the potential for human development and societal improvement.
Both frameworks reject metaphysical speculation. Positivism focuses on observable facts and empirical data, and Marxism is similarly grounded in materialist philosophy, analyzing tangible socio-economic relations rather than abstract ideas.

Thus, Marxism can be seen as a political adaptation of positivism, transforming from a method of understanding reality into a tool for revolutionary change in the world.

Soviet thinkers like Lenin, rejecting idealism in favor of Marxist materialism, made the success of the communist project dependent primarily on the development of modern technologies and industrialization based on empirical scientific knowledge. This gave rise to the so-called techno-communism. Within this system, machines played a central role in the construction of a classless society. Even people were often perceived as components of the technological process or mere appendages to complex and costly machinery. Katerina Clark in her monography The Soviet novel: History as ritual, devoted to this period, noted:

Standard pieces in literature of this period show the contrast between what a single machine can do as compared to many men or horses. In this atmosphere of fervid industrial utopianism, the machine became the dominant cultural symbol for Soviet society. […] The individual was conceived as a “part” of that greater whole, the machine, and the relationship between him and his society was seen as mechanical and regulative (Clark 1981, 94–95).

Such a techno-communist approach is highly characteristic of Kasyanyuk’s works, as I will show further in the study.

Techno-communism describes a theoretical social and political system that integrates advanced technology with communist principles, suggesting that technology can play a key role in managing resources, distributing goods, and achieving a more equal society. Although the term techno-communism has not been documented in its early usage, the first bright example could be traced even in Edward Bellamy’s 1888 utopian novel Looking Backward: 2000–1887. In this book, Bellamy envisions a highly advanced technological society in the United States, built on Marxist and socialist principles. He believes that technological progress is the key to overcoming many of the flaws of capitalism. The society depicted in the novel lies somewhere between socialism and communism, as resources are distributed equally among citizens, and both production and distribution are managed by “an industrial army”:

The effectiveness of the working force of a nation, under the myriad-headed leadership of private capital, even if the leaders were not mutual enemies, as compared with that which it attains under a single head, may be likened to the military efficiency of a mob, or a horde of barbarians with a thousand petty chiefs, as compared with that of a disciplined army under one general (Bellamy, 1888, 85).

This book by Bellamy was clearly influenced by Karl Marx’s earlier work Grundrisse (1857–1858). The influence consists particularly in its exploration of how technological advancements and the development of productive forces can create the conditions for a new social order, moving beyond capitalism towards communism. Marx discusses these ideas extensively in the Fragment on Machines (Marx 1973), where he outlines how the increasing use of machinery could ultimately lead to the emancipation of labor.

However, this concept was not entirely new. Nearly forty years earlier, in The Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had already discussed how technological advancements and the capitalist mode of production generate internal contradictions, which would eventually lead to the collapse of capitalism and the rise of communism. Their work highlighted how the very processes that fuel capitalist growth also sow the seeds of its destruction:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own gravediggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable (Marx – Engels 1969).

The term techno-communism has been actively used in recent contexts by various authors, including Mark Lievisse Adriaanse (Adriaanse 2016) and Aaron Bastani, the author of Fully Automated Luxury Communism: A Manifesto (Bastani 2019). Although this term cannot be considered academic or scientifically rigorous, it remains quite informal.

In literature, particularly in Soviet science fiction, the concept has been explored extensively as a vision of technology-enabled socialism. The term continues to appear in discussions about technology’s role in shaping future political and economic systems.

General characteristics of style¶

The brightest example of techno-communism is the statement of the leader of the Bolshevik revolution in Moscow Vladimir Lenin: “Коммунизм – это есть Советская власть плюс электрификация всей страны” (Lenin 1970, 159). In 1922, when the factory worker Sandro Kasyanyuk decided to write his first text, Lenin’s words had a very specific meaning and were perceived as an equation that his loyal followers tried to solve during the Soviet industrialization.

The biography of Sandro Kasyanyuk and even the exact main dates of his life remain unknown. He was not professionally involved in literary work; instead, he worked as a laborer at the Kharkiv plant Электросила (Electro-power). Therefore, when discussing this author, it is impossible to fully appreciate the biographical context of his literary works. Kasyanyuk exemplified the archetype of “the proletarian writer”. His first published text was accompanied by the following editorial remark: “Уважаємо цей художній репортаж початком пролетарської української прози…” (Kasyanyuk 1922a, 34).

Proletarian writers… were inclined to deny all the work of their predecessors. Rejecting any “agreements” with bourgeois writers of the bourgeois era, they were confident that in the shortest time they would create a proletarian culture, a proletarian literature, (Lvov-Rogachevsky 1925, 658–666).

According to party ideology, individuals with little formal literary training or talent were seen as better equipped to grasp the political objectives of literature, making them more valuable to promote, even if their writings lacked refinement or literary quality. This proletarian approach influenced the language used in the author’s stories. His writing is simple and often highly poetic, exaggerated to the point of creating a naively comic effect.

Sandro Kasyanyuk wrote five literary works, including four short stories and one play. He published these pieces between 1922 and 1927 (see Kasyanyuk 1922a, 1922b, 1923, 1925, 1927). His stories appeared in the literary journal Шляхи мистецтва and the newspaper Kультура і побут. His play Затока життя was released as a separate edition by the Kharkiv publishing house Гарт in 1923.

It cannot be stated with absolute certainty, but it appears that Kasyanyuk lacked sufficient familiarity with classical literature, which consequently had little influence on his language and style. Instead, his writings appear to be shaped by the content he encountered in newspapers, heard on the radio, or absorbed from everyday conversations. For example, in the following excerpt, Kasyanyuk uses purely colloquial constructions like “що воно таке” (what is it), “ноженята” (little legs), “ґзиться” (frolics), “цямка” (smacks). The tone of the passage is not strictly narrative. The author is not merely expressing thoughts. His goal is to convey an emotional impression of the piglet and gradually lead the reader to the conclusion that this animal reminds him of a machine. But even the very word “машинерія” used by Kasyanyuk is a calque of the English term “machinery”, which Kasyanyuk might have heard on the radio or read in a newspaper:

Отже, бачите, порося.
Що воно таке? М’ясо, кістки; з’єднано докупи; з’єднано доцільно, лагідно, спритно...
Рухається!.. Перебирає тими ноженятами. Біжить кудись...
Тиць! Стало!
Повернуло назад.
Бігом!.. Тихо! Звернуло вбік! Грається! Ґзиться.
Чого це йому так весело?
О! Підбігло до другого та й штовхає його під бік. Те хоче відповідати тим же, але ні! Брикнуло, надулось і пішло, - побігло геть.
А це вже біжить до другого брата чи товариша... але спинилось! Щось риє, цямка.
Їсть!
А як воно ходе!?
Диб! диб! - тюку-тюку, ніжка за ніжкою... Машинерія! (Kasyanyuk 1922b)

Kasyanyuk struggled to distinguish his personal impressions from the perspectives of his characters, leading to works lacking consistent protagonists. For instance, in the story Нова Утопія from the cycle Омашинення людства, the narrative begins with the author’s personal memories and impressions. However, without any transition or explanation, the author abruptly inserts himself as a character, leaving the emergence of the new protagonist unexplained. This scenario is very common and characteristic of nearly all his works. His anarchic, stream-of-consciousness style captured and documented his dreams, visions, and fantasies. It seems that his stories unfold without a clear authorial plan or script. Events occur randomly, and characters appear only to vanish almost immediately, as though the author, having already “played” with them, quickly moves on to something else – like grabbing a new toy.

In Kasyanyuk’s socialist utopian vision, machines play a central role, not merely as technical assistants but as companions to the Ukrainian proletariat, sometimes even implying intimate, erotic relationships. This theme is particularly evident in the aforementioned story Нова Утопія from the cycle Омашинення людства. The genre is defined by simple classification, blending essays, fantasies, dreams, and delusions.

Нова Утопія could be seen as the first literary expression of techno-communism. The story consists of eight parts. In the first part, the author urges readers to take a closer look at animals and notice their resemblance to machines. In the second part, ships in the harbor remind him of animals. But the most intelligent ships have already become the masters of humans, forcing them to serve. In the third part, the author encounters his brother, who serves on a massive ocean vessel. According to his brother, modern technology has enabled people to end social conflicts and wars. The ship looks luxurious and, at times, bourgeois, which conflicts with communist modesty. In subsequent parts, the brother leads the author into an underground realm of techno-communist utopia, where everyone studies the art of machinery, and all aspects of life are fully automated. In this mechanized environment, the author, coming from the ordinary world, struggles to move and is given special techno-orthopedic footwear. The main goal of the inhabitants of this utopian society is to accumulate valuable positivist knowledge and integrate with machines. The story ends with the senior mechanic commanding the main protagonist to step into the machine. Kasyanyuk neither perceives nor seems to consider any negative consequences of such mechanization and unification, which is very characteristic of his writing.

Disorganized portrayal of the techno-communist mind¶

Kasyanyuk’s first published text Кроки перші (Kasyanyuk 1922b, 29–34) represents a naive stream of consciousness of a factory worker, characterized by its unrefined nature, challenging to be classified as literature and even to discern the literary genre. The first part of the story titled Принада в будучінь is a disorganized portrayal of the main character’s feelings and experiences after gaining the ability to fly. He believes that this new power has changed him ethically, making him kinder and more empathetic toward others. The second part, titled Машинячі душі, describes a mechanic’s work on a steamship in a style that resembles an intimate, almost erotic, relationship between a man and a machine. The mechanic tenderly lubricates the steam engine in its various parts, believing that this care improves both its performance and how it treats him in return. Kasyanyuk emphasizes that the mechanic becomes a living part of the otherwise lifeless machine, embodying its soul. In the third part, А от вам фах другий, a radio operator experiences the “communization of the spirit,” merging with the radio station and becoming attuned to its emotions—feeling its struggles, joys, troubles, desires, and frustrations.

The editors of the magazine Шляхи Мистецтва, which published the short story, placed the following remark at the end:

Від редакції. Радо містимо цеє – чи не перше в українській мові оповідання – опис процесу певної фахової праці, зроблене самим безпосереднім учасником того процесу. Автор є робітник заводу „Електросила № 1» Загальної Електричної Компанії. На цім місці звертаємося з закликом подавати нам подібні, описи процесу роботи товаришів робітників инчих фахів. Уважаємо цей художній репортаж початком пролетарської української прози, і першою літературною формою (Kasyanyuk 1922a, 34).

The editor of the magazine clearly doubts whether this is a short story, a description of the work process, or an artistic reportage. It is this ambiguity that is the main feature of science fiction of the time, which, in my opinion, is an artistic reaction to the mass spread of the ideology of positivism at the beginning of the 20^th century. Kasyanyuk revisits the positivist program in his naïve style:

Несвідомо, навпомацьки йде чоловік у безвість досконалості. Шука одного, а друге знаходить. Не тямить, обмацуе, нюха... сліпцює. Але вже станув він на певний ґрунт! Він тямить, що робе. Тямить! Він знає, що коли будеш поводитись так, то буде отак; а коли не так, то буде он-як (Kasyanyuk 1922a, 29).

These words are nothing more than a conviction that a positive result can be achieved only from the experience and if all parameters of the technological process are observed. In the first part of the story Принада в будучінь, Kasyanyuk or the character from his story – as it is difficult to distinguish – describes creating wings for long-distance flights and beginning his journey from Africa. He allegedly turned himself into an airplane. The mood of the character is emphatically joyful and is very characteristic of techno-communism, which was a kind of interpretation of positivism and Marxism in the USSR:

О! до чого щасливим я став: і ніякого лиха не бачу. І навіть, щось таке, якесь лихо, не годен побачити. Та-ж йому вже до мене ніяк не доступно. Що ж мене так підвищало сильно? Так підняло у верх понад решту створіння земного? Та-ж це мій самоліт! Ця машина чудова, нова, дивовидна (Kasyanyuk 1922a, 31).

In these extremely naive phrases, Kasyanyuk carefully conveys a positivist picture of the world: Science and modern technologies will bring happiness to mankind by themselves, and all problems will become imperceptible and insignificant. Such myopia was very characteristic of those times. It is noticeable, for example, in the then-popular Марш авиаторов:

Мы рождены, чтоб сказку сделать былью,
Преодолеть пространство и простор,
Нам разум дал стальные руки-крылья,
А вместо сердца – пламенный мотор (Herman 1923).

If somebody has a fiery motor instead of a heart, then such a person ceases to be guided by moral instructions and turns into a tool of the owner of the motor, that is, the Soviet government. In such a way, a new “communist” human was invented.

This song was so popular and frequently broadcast that it became a cliché for depicting the 1920s in Soviet films. Although the song was first aired a year after Kasyanyuk published his story, he could likely have heard it on the radio later. It is possible that he simply captured the spirit of the times. The USSR needed aviation to improve communication between remote parts of the former Russian Empire in order to continue to control all parts of the Union. But Kasyanyuk himself does not realize this yet. His character, the airplane man, naively believes that positivism is perfectly combined with humanism: “Треба їм доказати, що я, хоч і дуже могутній, але саме тому і ніякого зла нікому й не роблю” (Kasyanyuk 1922a, 31).

Peasants’ enthusiasm and propaganda¶

A similar situation is observed in another short story Гаї та радіо (Kasyanyuk 1927, 30). In a distant Ukrainian village amongst groves, industrialization began with the fact that a radio receiver was brought in a car. All residents, except for some skeptical ones, were very happy with this news. They listened to the radio broadcast from Moscow with enthusiasm: “А настрій до того піднявся, що є вже думка поставити великий гучномовець на всю сільську площу. Це, може, й для других сел було б прикладом” (Kasyanyuk 1927, 31). It seems that the author does not think about what exactly the villagers will hear from this loudspeaker. Since there was no free press in Soviet Ukraine, the radio did not inform people much about world events, but it was a source of communist propaganda. The time for such reflections has not yet arrived. In a greater extent, and only with some exceptions, the first doubts about the false reality built by the media controlled by communist power will appear among the most writers only forty years later during the political Thaw period of the 1960s, while the full realization of this is related to the 2000s in Ukraine.

It is interesting how the feeling of admiration and happiness in the USSR seemed to arise with the advent of the radio, which broadcasts cheerful music and positive news about the achievements of the Soviet people. However, over time, this same radio put an end to that sense of happiness, revealing that modern technologies alone cannot sustain such feelings indefinitely. The Russian writer Ilf, in his notebooks of the late 1920s, stated “В фантастических романах главное это было радио. При нем ожидалось счастье человечества. Вот радио есть, а счастья нет” (Ilf 2021, 123). In the 2000s a Ukrainian science fiction writer Volodymyr Savchenko quite clearly formulated the main creed of that tendency, which I call the “collapse of the soviet positivism” (or techno-communism):

С тех пор чего только не появилось: и авиация, и космические корабли, и лазер, и ядерная энергетика, а всеобщего счастья как не было, так и нет. Цивилизация не работает на человека (Dubynyanska 2002).

But while those times were still far away, in the 1920s, residents were in a hurry to invest their own money in an unknown radio station:

У канцелярію ж забігають раз-по-раз члени ТДР (Товариство Друзів Радіо). Вже вписані та ще не вписані, що вносять та доносять свої внески. Задовго до прибуття сюди радіоначиння цих друзів радіо тут рахувалось понад 200 душ, протягом того тижня, поки робилось устаткування та виконувались спроби, їх кількість стала зростати сотнями. Так що оплата векселів за взяте в борг приладдя, була вже цілком забезпеченою (Kasyanyuk 1927, 31).

This passage highlights the peasants’ enthusiasm for the radio, some of whom may have invested their last savings into it, hoping that the future had finally arrived for them. Ukrainian peasants in the 1920s were excited about radios because they symbolized modernity, connected them to the outside world, and provided communal entertainment. Radios brought a sense of progress and hope, aligning with Soviet propaganda that glorified industrialization and socialism. Technology also amazed villagers with its novelty, offering a rare cultural and social experience in their isolated rural lives. They believed that announcers from Moscow would guide them on how to live properly and solve their problems. Only six years remained before the start of the Holodomor, a horrific famine orchestrated from Moscow that claimed millions of peasants’ lives. Yet, no news of this tragedy was broadcast on the radio.

Machine Souls: Mechanize yourself!¶

Another bright trend of the first techno-positivist literary works was most vividly manifested precisely in Kasyanyuk’s stories: it is the sexualization of mechanisms. The second part of the story Кроки перші entitled Машинячі душі begins with an almost erotic recommendation:

Бути слюсарем значиться мати право до машини руками торкатись, зачіпати машину, бо її обслуговувать мусиш. Так це чи ні, але досить того, що машина є велична річ і сякому-такому до неї зась! Треба самому бути машинізованим. Тому: навіть слюсарем бути і то вже – ідеал (Kasyanyuk 1927, 31).

This story, like almost all of Kasyanyuk’s works, does not have a clear plot, its language is chaotic, full of vulgarisms, colloquialisms, Russianisms, the author’s thought is scattered and the main protagonist – an oilman – has no character, appearance, habits, history, language, or age and even a distinct appearance. Instead of all these usual and typical signs of a literary work, the story consists of detailed descriptions of what the mechanic, the “machine companion”, does with the machine, armed with an oiler, a vessel with engine oil, which he must constantly add to various machine parts. This description does not align with reality. In fact, machines do not require constant lubrication by a specialized worker. However, the essence of the text lies not in its factual accuracy but rather in crafting a metaphorical representation of almost sexual relations with a machine. It might remind the readers of sexual intercourse. We might call it an industrial porn:

Машина і маслянщик це – великі друзі. А хіба-ж ні? А подивіться, як любо вони поводяться одне з другим. З яким закоханням дивиться це малюсиньке, малюсинке створіння людина на отого велетня машину, перед яким він як муха… І який він радий, коли торкнувшися велетенського ліктя машини, відчуває нормальне тепло її… І здається, він гладить велетня того по ліктеві… Яка ти в мене гарна, як ти гарно працюєш, як приємно обом нам… Він, здається, готов обіймити того велетня (Kasyanyuk 1927, 31–32).

Machine Wedding: The first industrial techno-sex¶

The sexualization of the machine is taken to an even greater extent in another story titled Машинове весілля (Kasyanyuk 1925), which deals with the love, wedding, and sex of a Ukrainian male-Engine with a German Dynamo female-Turbine for electricity production. Kasyanyuk describes in detail the entire genealogy of the bride and groom. For example, the young German Dynamo turbine was the daughter of Elektroworkshop’s mother. After its production, the turbine began to look for a groom and a Ukrainian Plant produced him: “То не дурно ж Двигун молодець чипуривсь так завзято та довго і зараз ось дбає про зустріч теї молодої” (Kasyanyuk 1925, 7).

When the wedding (that is, the combination of parts of the engine and the turbine) was finished, the narrator called out, addressing the engine:

Цілуй же козаче, коли ще молодий, не гайсь, не марнуйся… Торкнулися валом до валу. Це серцем до серця тобто… На вечір Двигун собі весело пухкав, крутилась Динамо, створяючи плин чудеса (Kasyanyuk 1925, 7).

The structure of this story is notably more organized than the previous ones. It is clear that the author was captivated by the idea of portraying the process of electricity generation in Ukraine, specifically through the use of a German Turbine, which was noteworthy because it came from a capitalist country. Kasyanyuk provides detailed accounts of the Turbine’s journey to Ukraine, overcoming various obstacles along the way. This includes a miner uprising and a bloody class war of extermination, as prescribed by Karl Marx. Following the proletariat’s victory, the factory where the Turbine was manufactured was named after the uprising.

While the events are presented in a more structured manner, it is evident that Kasyanyuk himself had not fully fleshed out the details of what was happening. He often compensates for the plot’s gaps with emotional statements and exclamations, attempting to enhance the story’s impact:

Це ж – миша коло бика, це – муха біля миски!
Але ж диви! Пішов! Повертається лихо.
Хоч, правда, дуже поволі. Для ока, то й зовсім нібито не помітно.
Але візьміть-но! Човен, той велетень, випростовуватись став!
Нарешті випливає зовсім на середину.
О! Видно вже, як іде, як «котиться» у бік один всім носом.
Це став вже поперек.
Так десь то саме й треба! Бо «смовзики» тягнути перестали, а, перегукуючись свистками, поринули назад, у другий бік.
І самий пароплав, то був як притаївшись, ніяк не ворушивсь! Так, наче б не живий.
А це ожив (Kasyanyuk 1922b, 23)!

The tendency to sexualize the products of the industrial production of mechanisms is not unique to Ukrainian science fiction. It was also observed in the cultures of other countries at that time. Thus, in the science fiction film Metropolis (1927) by the German director Fritz Lang, the scientist Rotwang created a robot to replace his dead wife Hel. This is not a direct analogy to Kasyanyuk’s sexualization of machines, but the concept that an object created in a mechanical workshop with the help of modern technology could be viewed as a sexual object has similarities. Both ideas involve attributing human-like qualities or emotional significance to mechanical objects, making them more than just functional tools.

The earliest example of the sexualization of a hand-made object can be called Galatea, which was created by Pygmalion. But today the sexualization of inanimate objects has reached a new level. In their article Do Robots Have Sex? A Prolegomenon Robert Sparrow, Eliana Horna and Friederike Eyssel claim that “on some accounts of what it is to be sexed, robots might ‘have’ sex: they might be male and female in just the same way as (most) human beings are” (Sparrow et al. 2023, 1707).

In Kasyanyuk’s story, the personification and sexualization of machines is taken to an extreme, with mechanical parts being portrayed as a bride and a groom in a wedding. The intimate and erotic imagery, like the “kiss” of their shafts and their “heart-to-heart” connection, creates a surreal scene where machines are given the roles of lovers in a symbolic marriage, blending mechanical functionality with romantic and sexual overtones. Sparrow explores a similar idea, though more theoretically. He argues that robots could theoretically “have” sex if we assign them the same sexed qualities (male or female) that we do to humans. This idea opens the door to anthropomorphizing machines by attributing human sexual roles and functions to them. Both texts deal with the blurring of boundaries between the human and the artificial.

New utopia and techno-communist paradise¶

However, despite the obvious imperfection, Kasyanyuk’s stories still contain many interesting observations characteristic of techno-communism. For example, in the first part of the story Нова Утопія, Kasyanyuk draws attention to the fact that animals and man-made mechanisms have a common nature: a pig, a horse, and a cart have what he calls the “machinery”. In the second part, Kasyanyuk compares ships with living creatures: “Цікава річ отії кораблі! Та ж це цілком живе створіння, з заліза вроджене, живуче на землі… Цікавий як істота він, складна і дуже мудра” (Kasyanyuk 1922b, 23).

At the same time, these ships in his imagination are exploiters of workers, and therefore capitalists. He draws an imaginary dialogue of the ship with its sailors-servants. The ship gives orders to the Ukrainian workers in Russian and Polish, threatens the workers with punishment for disobedience, and shouts chauvinist slogans in a domineering voice:

– Іван! Поді налєй води? Ведь я же твой хозяїн!
– Та що його там лагідно прохати!
Вже чую – хвать! – за шию хтось мене і... б’є, чи наче душить.
– Створіння це геть все виконувати мусить. З ним панькатися не треба! Не слухає котре...
– І овшем, проше пана, паскуда та погана, хце рувним зе мнов биць! В батоги їх. Лайдакув.
– Свят цалий для полякув!
Підказує мені чуття моє яскраво, що хотів би, чи не хотів, а мушу я робити по панському наказу (Kasyanyuk 1922b, 23–24).

This is especially interesting in the context of the post-colonial discourse, because Russians and Poles have often been perceived in some regions of Ukraine as foreign colonizers who tried to establish their order at the expense of the local population. An echo of these events can be heard in the attitude of the ship towards the workers.

Regarding the quoted passage and some others, it is particularly noteworthy that Kasyanyuk imitates the meter of Shakespeare’s tragedies. This is quite unusual and does not fully align with the concept of a “proletarian author”. Unfortunately, the near-total lack of information about Kasyanyuk’s life makes it impossible to determine, where this “Shakespearean” meter came from, whether Kasyanyuk had read the British playwright’s tragedies, or perhaps seen his plays performed in the theater.

In the last part of the story, the hero enters the utopian society of the future in his dreams. The future resembles a positivist paradise. All life is organized there in such a way that technological processes immediately solve the smallest problems of humanity. However, it is very easy to do this because Kasyanyuk does not deal with any serious problems. The only thing that worries the characters is their interest in the latest technologies and the desire to get some up-to-date gadgets.

Kasyanyuk in the context of his contemporary literary criticism¶

It is important to note that none of the critics who have previously examined Kasyanyuk’s works have conducted an in-depth analysis or placed them within the framework of what could be seen as techno-communism in 1920s Soviet Ukraine. While the term “techno-communism” did not exist at the time, the concept was very much present and actively exploited, making it a significant aspect that cannot be ignored in understanding his works.

It seems that the critics were merely anticipating more substantial works (like novels or collections of short stories) from the first Ukrainian science fiction writer, expecting to begin analyzing them in the future. However, it is also apparent that the critics may have overlooked the context. Techno-communism was a commonplace aspect of their daily lives, rendering it unnoticed amidst their routine. Here are just a few mentions from the sole critic, Oleksandr Biletskyi, who took notice of Kasyanyuk’s writings in the 1920s:

Серед письменників-початківців звернув був на себе увагу, ще за часів Шляхів мистецтва, один — Сандро Касьянюк, маловідомий і по сю пору читачам. В нього наче були деякі дані стати згодом ніби пролетарським українським Уеллсом, але величезної його “технічної” уяви було, однак, як виявилося, замало, щоб створити художньо оформлені великі речі; невелика кількість надрукованих його спроб може хіба правити за цікавий взірець “творчості, що не досягла ще щабля мистецтва” (Biletskyi 1926, 150–151).

Сучасне художнє захоплення машиною та технікою не зачепило Винниченка. В цій галузі згадуваний вище мало кому знаний Сандро Касьянюк міг би багато дечому його навчити (Biletskyi 1928, 35).

The later mention by Volodymyr Smyrniv does not significantly differ from his predecessor’s notes:

Опубліковані праці С. Касянюка переважно являють собою серію нарисів, які передають враження автора від життя в селі, а згодом у міському середовищі. Захоплення письменника розвитком техніки є очевидним. Однак нариси не тільки неґрунтовні — їм бракує осмисленого бачення явища, яке в них оспівується. З огляду на сказане вище ні структура, ні зміст нарисів С. Касянюка не дають підстав вважати їх справжньою науковою фантастикою. Але в 1920-х роках пропагандисти пролетарської літератури були готові визнати праці С. Касянюка експериментальною формою наукової фантастики (Smyrnov 2019, 65).

Even with his inexperience and struggles to handle literary tasks, Kasyanyuk’s naive perspective captured many important details from his surrounding reality. A thoughtful and insightful critic would find his works to be valuable material for analysis. These works offer insights into the peculiarities of that time and the broader historical developments they contributed to.

Conclusion¶

Ukrainian science fiction writer Sandro Kasyanyuk, although he was not distinguished by his mastery of style and plot construction, nevertheless became quite a noticeable phenomenon because he reflected in his works, as if in a kind of naive mirror, the feeling of the era of primary techno-communism of Soviet Ukraine of the 1920s. It was a feeling of pure fascination with technology, industrial production, and new, previously unseen mechanisms. Kasyanyuk believed that technical progress would lead to positive consequences by itself, and he did not guess about possible negative consequences, which was a typical positivist illusion of the beginning of the 20^th century, characteristic not only of Ukraine.

References¶

Adriaanse 2015/2016: Adriaanse, M. L.: Globalization, Post-Politics, and Populism: The Power Shift of Neoliberal Postmodern Globalization and Its Discontents. 2015/2016.
Bastani 2019: Bastani, A.: Fully Automated Luxury Communism: A Manifesto. London 2019.
Bellamy 1888: Bellamy, E.: Looking Backward, 2000–1887. Boston 1888.
Biletskyi 1926: Білецький, O.: Про прозу взагалі і нашу прозу. Червоний Шлях, 1926, 3, 133–163.
Biletskyi 1928: Білецький, O.: Сонячна машина В. Винниченка. Критика, 1928, 2, 31–43.
Clark 1981: Clark, K.: The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual. Chicago 1981.
Dubynyanska 2002: Дубинянская, Я.: Жить во Вселенной. Дзеркало Тижня, 32, 2002, 407, 7–8.
Feigl 2025: Feigl, H.: Positivism. Britannica, 6. 11. 2025.
Herman 1926: Герман, П.: Марш авиаторов, 1926.
Ilf 2021: Ильф, И.: Записные книжки, 1925–1937. Москва 2021.
Kasyanyuk 1922a: Касянюк, С.: Кроки перші. Шляхи мистецтва 1, 1922, 3, 29–34.
Kasyanyuk 1922b: Касянюк, С.: Нова Утопія (із циклу “Омашинення людства”). Шляхи мистецтва 2, 1922, 4, 22–26.
Kasyanyuk 1923: Касянюк, С.: Затоки життя. Харків 1923.
Kasyanyuk 1925: Касянюк, С.: Машинове весілля (із циклу “Омашинення людства”). Культура і життя (додаток до газети Вісті), 1925, 12, 6–7.
Kasyanyuk 1927: Касянюк, С.: Гаї та радіо. Культура і життя (додаток до газети Вісті), 1927, 7, 2–4.
Lenin 1970: Ленин, В. И.: Полное собрание сочинений. Том 45. Ноябрь 1920 – март 1921. Москва 1970.
Lvov-Rogachevsky 1925: Lvov-Rogachevsky, V.: Literary Encyclopedia: Dictionary of Literary Terms. Moscow 1925.
Marx 1973: Marx, K.: Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. London 1973.
Marx – Engels 1969: Marx, K. – Engels, F.: The Communist Manifesto. New York 1969.
Smyrniv 2019: Смирнів, В.: Українська фантастика: історичний і тематичний огляд. Харків 2019.
Sparrow et al. 2023: Sparrow, R. – Horn, E. – Eyssel, F.: Do Robots Have Sex? A Prolegomenon. International Journal of Social Robotics 15, 2023, 1707–1723.

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Pécs
Oleh Shynkarenko
Pécs, singingfoot@gmail.com
ORCID: 0009-0001-1690-8967