You were replying to my message that mentioned Sakharov. In that message, I was dealing with the naive materialism of another poster.
I thought he was pretty naive too.

I have already explained why this argument is irrelevant. We might as well discuss creativity in sexual perversions, if any creativity is fine by you.
You need to express yourself more clearly, then. When you ask 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?' (not 'economic creativity'), you leave yourself open to attack from all quarters.

Nope. The premiere was on 16-Feb-1936.
I never said they were kept off the stage altogether during the 30s. Moliere was refused a performance licence in March 1930, and although it did appear in February 1936, it was cancelled on 9 March of the same year. After six years, it lasted three weeks. As with much Soviet censorship in the 1930s, Bulgakov's persecution was largely determined by Stalin's whims. Like a cat with a mouse, really.

Have you actually read them? I have, and they don't impress me all that much. "Adam and Eve" is particularly bad.
Oh, I see, you don't like them. Well, I take it all back. They were rightly suppressed.

What sort of argument is that?

So they were published in the end.
After some thirty years of refusal. That sort of lag hardly makes for a vibrant literary scene, does it?

What about creativity in child pornography? It was the law, get over it.
What is this fixation on sexual deviancy? And what was so odious about Bulgakov's work to make the comparison worthwhile?

She should have chosen better time for that. As if there had not been anything more important for the USSR in 1939-1941, when WWII was raging.
Stalin was particularly busy in that period, what with signing pacts with Fascists and having his fingers in his ears the rest of the time.

Anyway, that's a cheap shot and beside the point. From Tsvetaeva to Berdyaev and the Nabokovs, great people left (or were forced out) in droves. Russia under both Ulyanov and Dzhugashvili was, regardless of its more serious atrocities, a climate deeply hostile to creativity.

Explain what?
The 'ideology' of human rights, perhaps?