Russia in the Era of NEP: Explorations in Soviet Society and Culture: No. 657

352 Pages·1991·9.699 MB·English

by  Sheila Fitzpatrick, etc.

RUSSIA IN TH E ERA OF NEP
Indiana-Michigan Series in Russian and East European Studies
Alexander Rabinowitch and William G. Rosenberg,
general editors
Advisory Board
Deming Brown Zvi Gitelman
Robert W. Campbell David Ransel
Henry Cooper Ronald Grigor Suny
Herbert Eagle Roman Szporluk
Ben Eklof William Zimmerman
RUSSIA IN THE ERA OF NEP
Explorations in Soviet Society and Culture
EDITED BY
SHEILA FITZPATRICK,
ALEXANDER RABINOWITCH,
AND
RICHARD STITES
INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Bloomington and Indianapolis
This book was brought to publication with the assistance of a grant from the Joint
Committee on Soviet Studies of the American Council of Learned Societies and the
Social Science Research Council
° 1991 by Indiana University Press
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any in­
formation storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publisher. The Association of American University Presses* Resolution on Per­
missions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition.
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed
Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
© ~
MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Russia in the era of NEP : explorations in Soviet society and culture
/ edited by Sheila Fitzpatrick, Alexander Rabinowitch, and Richard
Stites.
p. cm. — (Indiana-Michigan series in Russian and East
European studies)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 0-253-32224-3 (cloth). — ISBN 0-253-20657-X (paper)
1. Soviet Union—Politics and government—1917—1936. 2. Soviet
Union—Intellectual life—1917-1970. 3. Soviet Union—Economic
policy—1917-1928. I. Fitzpatrick, Sheila. II. Rabinowitch,
Alexander. III. Stites, Richard. IV. Series.
DK266.R82 1991
947.084—dc20 90-25044
1 2 3 4 5 95 94 93 92 91
CONTENTS
PREFACE VU
I. Introduction: NEP Russia as a “Transitional”
Society 1
William G. Rosenberg
II. The Problem of Class Identity in NEP Society 12
Sheila Fitzpatrick 1
III. Class and Consciousness in a Socialist Society:
Workers in the Printing Trades during NEP 34
Diane P. Koenker
IV. Labor Conflict in Moscow, 1921-1925 58
John B. Hatch\
V. Workers’ Artelp and Soviet Production Relations 72
Hiroaki Kuronhya
VI. Private Trade and Traders during NEP 89
Alan Ball |
V II. Family Life in Moscow during NEP 106
R. E. Johnscm
V III. Working-Class Women and the “Withering Away”
of the Family^ Popular Responses to Family Policy 125
Wendy Z. Goldhfan
IX. “Razmychka?” Urban Unemployment and Peasant
In-migration as Sources of Social Conflict 144
Douglas R. Weiner
X. Soldiers in the Proletarian Dictatorship: From
Defending the Revolution to Building Socialism 156
Mark von Hagen
XI. Policing the NEP Countryside 174
Neil Weissman
v
VI Contents
XII. Insoluble Conflicts: Village Life between
Revolution and Collectivization 192
Helmut Altrichter
X III. The “Quiet Revolution” in Soviet Intellectual Life 210
Katerina Clark
XIV. The Press and Its Message: Images of America
in the 1920s and 1930s 231
Jeffrey Brooks
XV. Popular Literature of the 1920s: Russian Peasants
as Readers 253
Régine Robin
XVI. Popular Song in the NEP Era 268
Robert A. Rothstem
XVII. Bolshevik Ritual Building in the 1920s 295
Richard Sûtes
X V III. Conclusion: Understanding NEP Society and
Culture in the Light of New Research 310
William G. Rosenberg
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 321
Lori A. Citti
CONTRIBUTORS 331
INDEX 333
PREFACE
One of the most exciting and influential collective intellectual enterprises
in which scholars of Russian history and politics were engaged in recent
years was the Seminar in Twentieth-Century Russian and Soviet Social
History. From its first meeting in Philadelphia in 1980, the seminar, con­
ceived initially by Moshe Lewin and Alfred Rieber of the University of
Pennsylvania, brought together historians from the United States, Great
Britain, and Western Europe to consider broad analytical problems that cut
across the traditional 1917 dividing line. In contrast to the conference
mode of traditional scholarly gatherings, the seminar was structured to
encourage innovative approaches and new research; to bring the knowl­
edge and insights of scholars working on disparate but related problems to
bear on broader central themes and issues; and to identify important
questions and fruitful avenues for future investigation. Most important,
the seminar brought together younger and more senior scholars in a small
setting that allowed them to think creatively about major problems of
twentieth-century Russian and Soviet social history. The success of the
seminar is evidenced by its durability, by its popularity as a forum for
scholarly discussion, and by the many publications that have been enriched
by their authors' participation in it.
Previous meetings focused on the Russian and Soviet peasantry (1982),
the Imperial and Soviet bureaucracy ( 1983), and the social history of Soviet
Russia during the Civil War (1984). Work presented in preliminary form at
the Civil War seminar was developed and subsequently published as Party,
State, and Society in the Russian Civil War: Explorations in Social History, edited
by Diane P. Koenker, William G. Rosenberg, and Ronald Grigor Suny
(Bloomington, 1989). A seminar on industrialization and change in Soviet
society during the 1930s was held in 1988.
The present volume, on the transformation of urban and rural society
and culture in Russia during the era of the New Economic Policy of the
1920s, grew out of work presented at the fifth seminar in the series, held at
Indiana University in 1986. The main themes of the book and the historical
context in which they are considered are elaborated by William G. Rosen­
berg in the introduction that follows. We should like simply to mention
here that when we began planning the NEP seminar, perestroika and the
rethinking of Soviet history had barely begun. It is our hope that this book
will shed useful new light on one of the key historical moments in this
discussion.
vii
Vil! Preface
The essays included in this volume convey only in pan the rich and
rewarding contributions and discussions that animated the seminar. The
editors wish to express deepest appreciation to all our colleagues who
attended and whose comments and criticisms helped shape the present
book: Susanne Ament, Dorothy Atkinson, Kendall Bailes, Henryk Baran,
William Burgess, John Bushnell, William Chase, Ben Eklof, Barbara Engel,
Laura Engelstein, Loren Graham, Peter Kenez, Christel Lane, Mary
McAuley, Roberta Manning, Daniel Orlovsky, David Ransel, Blair Ruble,
Ronald Grigor Suny, Lynn Viola, James Von Geldern, Allan Wildman,
Richard Wortman, and Reginald Zelnik.
The NEP seminar and the preparation of this volume were made possi­
ble by generous support from the Joint Committee on Soviet Studies of the
American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research
Council and by assistance from the Indiana University Office of Inter­
national Programs and Russian and East European Institute.
/
INTRODUCTION
NEP RUSSIA AS A “TRANSITIONAL” SOCIETY
William G. Rosenberg
As students of Soviet history know quite well, the period between the end
of the Civil War and the onslaught of collectivization and rapid in­
dustrialization in late 1929 is known as NEP because of a series of new
economic policies introduced by the Bolsheviks in the spring of 1921.
These had to do first and foremost with ending food requisitions from the
countryside and eliminating tight restrictions on private trade and produc­
tion. With victory in the Civil War assured, the confiscation of grain and
the effort to maintain rigid controls on the pricing and distribution of
goods no longer made political or economic sense. Wholesale peasant
resistance had culminated in massive uprisings in Tambov province late in
1920, just as the anti-Bolshevik “Whites” and their European allies were
being defeated. Workers in Petrograd and elsewhere appeared on the
verge of revolt over scarcities and harsh working conditions. Opposition
had broken out openly within the party itself. Early in March 1921 sailors
at Kronstadt seized the island fortress to demand “land and bread” and a
Soviet government without the Bolsheviks. Bolshevik leaders everywhere
were quickly persuaded that the party had to retreat, at least for a time,
that the policies of “War Communism” had to give way to a more relaxed
period of recovery and transition.
The first task was to reduce tensions in the countryside. The introduc­
tion of NEP consequently involved the end of grain requisitioning and the
imposition instead of a fixed tax in kind. It was anticipated that these two
measures would increase food production, since peasants could expect to
retain whatever was left after taxes and consume or market it to their own
advantage. Surpluses were also to be distributed through private as well as
state trading networks, and at prices largely determined by supply and
1
2 William G. Rosenberg
demand. It was hoped this would lead to a more efficient (even if less
equitable) system of distribution and free the party itself from much of the
responsibility for assuring that citizens were adequately provided.
Major changes were also promised in industry. In many sectors, a much
freer market was to replace the highly centralized system for allocating
scarce industrial resources and setting prices. Strict labor regulations were
to be relaxed, especially those associated with Trotsky’s policies of labor
“militarization” in 1920. In some enterprises, “bourgeois” managers and
other administrative persons would be invited to resume their old posi­
tions. Many of those who had emigrated would also be welcome to return,
especially if they had essential skills and qualifications. Limited private
enterprise was authorized, particularly in consumer goods and services.
The party’s immediate goal was the recovery of agriculture and industry
from seven devastating years of war and revolution.
Lenin and his comrades also hoped for party unity. This involved accept­
ing in large measure the sharp criticisms expressed by “Democratic Cen­
tralists,” the “Workers’ Opposition,” and other factional groups, particular­
ly as they pertained to arbitrariness and excessive political centralization.1
The autonomy of regional and local organizations would consequendy
increase. The frightening and often arbitrary use of force would give way
to a period of orderly politics, involving “active participation of all mem­
bers in the life of the party, in deciding questions, and in building the party
organization.”2 Concessions were made in the direcdon of free discussion
and cridcism, although factions were specifically proscribed.
These changes have persuaded many historians that had Lenin not been
severely incapacitated by strokes in 1922 and 1923, the enure course of
Soviet history would have been different. His illness in December 1921
seriously weakened the leadership role of the Politburo, leaving Stalin and
others relatively free to carry out policies on their own. In May 1922 Lenin
suffered partial paralysis and temporarily lost the ability to speak. In
mid-December he suffered two additional strokes. By March 1923 his
polidcal acdvity was effectively at an end, almost an entire year before his
death in January 1924. The principal political question of the time, con­
sequendy, was who would succeed him as head of the party and chairman
of the Council of Ministers.
The logical choice appeared to be Trotsky, founder of the Red Army,
commissar of war, and arguably the country’s most charismatic figure. Few
understood Stalin’s ambitions in this regard, or appreciated his shrewd
ability to use the power he was developing as party secretary to such great
advantage. Pardy for this reason, partly because Stalin’s subsequent dicta­
torship was itself so important for Soviet and world history, the ensuing
“struggle for power” has captured historians’ attention. The 1920s are
traditionally seen as years of political transition. The important bench­