Monthly Archives: February 2015

Who really likes living in a communal apartment anyways???

Posted on by

The idea of the USSR as a “communal apartment” presents the idea of socialism and the Soviet state in an analogy that is easy to grasp and remember ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 414))). The “communal apartment” ties in with the author’s thesis of the creation within the Soviet Union and the “Bolsheviks efforts on behalf of ethnic particularism.” Consistent efforts is seen in promoting group rights even at the cost of not harmonizing with rights of the proletariat, in contrast showing hostility to the rights of the individual ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 415))). Part of the whole socio-political experiment is summed up in the following quote, “ ‘The world’s first state of workers and peasants’ was the world’s first state to institutionalize ethnoterritorial federalism, classify all citizens according to their biological nationalities and formally prescribe preferential treatment of certain ethically defined populations” ((David A. Hollinger, How Wide the Circle of the ‘We’? American Intellectuals and the Problem of Ethos since World War Two) American Historical Review 98 no. 2, (1993), pp. 317-337))). These nationalities would make up the separate rooms of the Soviet Federation.

This idea at first may seem contrary to socialism. Even early socialist closely tied to Lenin disagreed with this approach. Yet here Stalin and Lenin both agreed on this idea. To be clear we need to differentiate between “national culture” and “national traits, interest and responsibilities”. The USSR’s makeup consists of various groups such as Ukrainians, Russians, and Georgians whom each possessed individual peculiarities that made them such, national traits. Thus, these groups viewed as separate nations, possessed rights ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 416))). Acknowledging that each group had its own unique rights played a key part in unity of the federation. Stalin stated, “Nations are sovereign and all nations are equal” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 416))). Equality in no way means that all nations are equal in size, power, economy or in their development whether “civilized” or “backward”. “But all nations—indeed all nationalities no matter how “backward”—were equal because they were equally sovereign, that is, because they all had the same rights” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 416))).

This entire idea seems to be counter-intuitive. It railed against what many socialist viewed as an “‘philistine ideal.’ Lenin’s socialists had to “preach against [slogans of national culture] in all languages, ‘adapting’ themselves to all local and national requirements”” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), pp. 417-18))). Therein lies the crux of the issue why allow for nations within the federation.  It was a necessary evil to get individuals to adopt socialism, someone who was of the same language and background to support and perpetuate socialism. Now the locals view socialism as a nationally owned idea and not as an imposed idea of a different nation.  Lenin also came to realize that to gain the trust of these once former oppressed nations under tsarist control, recognition as a nation built confidence and trusts in the idea of the USSR and promoted the idea of acceptance to state socialism. This doctrine actually was successful through the 1930s. Nearly 200 separate national identities emerged with schools, periodicals and communities establish to support this grandiose effort. This required a massive bureaucracy to manage this system, requiring change of policy again.

Finally, “by the end of the decade most ethnically defined soviets, villages, districts and other small units had been disbanded, some autonomous republics forgotten and most “national minority” schools and institutions closed down…however…the ethnic groups that already had their own republics and their own extensive bureaucracies were actually told to redouble their efforts at building distinct national cultures.” The idea behind this was “in order to concentrate on a few full-fledged, fully equipped “nations” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 445))). The purpose behind this idea was to promote culture to the various republics through the arts, which lasted until the demise of the USSR in an attempt to bring a cohesiveness to the state. Emphasis now is on a national language in addition to the language of each individual’s nationality to reaffirm this solidarity of state. Did this experiment work? The answer is summed up in the final word of the article where it states, “Seventy years after the X Party Congress the policy of indigenization reached its logical conclusion: the tenants of various rooms barricaded their doors and started using the windows, while the befuddled residents of the enormous hall and kitchen stood in the center scratching the backs of their heads [referring to the Russians]. Should they try to recover their belongings? Should they knock down the walls? Should they cut off the gas? Should they covert their “living area” into a proper apartment?” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), pp. 451-2))). So goes the social experiment, the Soviets seemed always to take the most convoluted way to get to a goal, ultimately the tenants final decision to flee the communal apartment passes judgment on this grand experiment.

Frederick W. Taylor

Posted on by

Author: Frederick W. Taylor was born in 1856 in Philadelphia, and died in 1915 in the same city. He was born into a lawyer’s family, and excelled in academics. He passed the entrance exam for Harvard, but unfortunately was unable to go due to failing eyesight. He later joined the Midvale Steel Company where he rose in the ranks from laborer to chief engineer. He could have become an engineer, but chose to focus more on work reforms in factories instead.

Context: Taylor lived during the height of the Industrial Revolution in America, and although he did not live in Europe, it is clear his ideas were influenced by other European authors on the subject. In his work, The Principles of Scientific Management, he takes many ideas from Adam Smith. Namely, that factory workers can improve themselves almost indefinitely, that incorporating machines is a good thing, and that everyone is connected and everyone improves from utilizing factory labor.

Language: Taylor also uses a very scientific approach in his work (much like Adam Smith), and uses dialogue to prove his point. His dialogue uses the accent of the laborer in the transcript, to perhaps show what kind of character he is, as well as his education level and why he can be persuaded to improve his workload in a gruff way.

Audience: It is pretty clear that he is speaking to the Middle to Upper classes here. He is trying to explain why this method works to other possible factory managers so that they may incorporate this method as well. He is not speaking to the actual laborers. If he were, it would possibly jeopardize his methods, since he is speaking about how to manipulate the workers so they perform better.

Intent: To reveal a new method of managing laborers: appeal to them on an individual basis, get to know them, and learn what will make them perform better.

Message: The archetype of the manager overseeing from afar while the laborers do all the work is an unstable and unproductive one. It is important for the manager to take on some of the work and be the glue that holds the factory together.

Source for biographical evidence: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/584820/Frederick-W-Taylor

Meyerhold

Posted on by

Meyerhold’s story is important because it signifies the changes in the arts and theater that were occurring in this time. Also, his story signifies a classic ‘rags to riches’ story in which someone who has lost everything (or never really had anything) returns and is successful.

More to the point, though, it’s interesting how this story demonstrates how historically tied Russia and Eastern Europe are. The fact that Meyherhold moved his company from Russia to Georgia at one point, and then later moved back, represents these historical ties. After all, Russian is often spoken in this countries, and the strength of the ideas and cultural exchanges between the two cannot be understated. This also shows how today, after being used to having the countries on its borders have a cultural allegiance with Russia for centuries, Russia is so intent on keeping the countries in Eastern Europe within its sphere of influence. As it stands today, Russia will do anything to keep these countries on its side in a time of tensions between Russia and the West.

Five Cheers for Five Year Plans?

Posted on by

When collectivization started, it opened a new chapter in Soviet economics, while closing another.  With the ending of the NEP that attempted to use the private sector to bring Russia away from its perceived ‘backwardness’, the Five Year Plans were implemented to achieve the same goal.  However, as Lewin in On Soviet Industrialization describes, it was at great cost.

Lewin begins by establishing that he declares the NEP to be too weak and did not encompass enough of the economy to be successful.  He states that the “NEP showed signs of not coping”, which could eventually lead to an economic crisis (273).  Unfortately, as Lewin continues, it is clear that the Five Year Plans were not better, possibly even worse.  Beginning with the first plan that ended a year early which plunged the entire economy into chaos, it was unclear what the future of the system was going to be.  Since there was no incentive for workers to be productive, unlike in the NEP, the end of quarters always became mad dashes for quotas and manipulation of books became rampant.  Lewin attributes this to the command system, where there were simply too many superiors making too many demands causing resources to be stretched too thin or not to be created at all.    Lewin concludes that this ruined “initiative from below” (283), with too many bureaucratic layers and leaders with self-interests.

The Five Year Plans quickly enveloped the entire economic system, where so many citizens had to sacrifice so little.  This is an economic system that should not be celebrated.

The workers of Manitostroi

Posted on by

The trouble with planning out every aspect of life is that you simply can’t. You can’t account for unexpected drought or famine or war- and especially not for the will of the individuals. Stalin and the Bolsheviks discovered this the hard way, with the implementation, and subsequent failures of their “Five Year Plan.” One of the most notable examples, Magnitostroi, is presented by Stephen Kotkin in his article, “Peopling Magnitostroi.”
The poor, the illiterate, and the exiled were all shuffled off to a desolate city, Magnitostroi, to spend months at a time laboring away at products they would never be able to enjoy. Entirely dependent on the train, their only connection to the outside world, inhabitants were cut off from family and friends. The city grew from twenty-five people to 250,000 in the space of three years, but this was no indicator of its prosperity. Many of the workers were given advances to convince them to work in Manitostroi, but even those who received money often fled after short periods of time. The government was unable to account for the simple misery of the residents of the city. According Kotkin, “even for the standards of the day, living conditions on the site were harsh” ((Kotkin, Stephen. “Peopling Magnitostroi: the Politics of Demography” in Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization. Berkley: University of California, 1993: 84.)) No amount of money in the world (and certainly not the amount the workers were receiving) was enough to entreat most to stay.
So why did the government insist on building a city out of nothing, on shaping and sculpting a desolate patch of ground to its every whim? Was it in a show of power- to prove that nothing was stronger than the willpower of the people, forced by the hand of the government? Was populating Magnitostroi truly an achievement, as officials claimed, or was it a blatant imposition on free will?

The Factory of Man Himself

Posted on by

With the reshaping of a nation into something never before seen on earth, Russia in the early twentieth century was asking its people to become something utterly unique. The Russian people were tasked with transforming their nation into the world’s largest communist state, and that task came with the responsibility of becoming citizens capable of making fundamental changes to their lives to allow the system to prosper.  With a population of a quarter million growing over the span of three years, the development and growth of Magnitostroi was dependent on the wrangling of vocational school graduates, urbanites, even decommissioned military regiments. The need for specialists to guide the labor of the unskilled workers was greater than ever, and the desire of specialists to serve was nonexistent. Many skipped out on work, or never reported when assigned. Citizens sent to Magnitostroi were met with empty steppe-land instead of the chrome furnaces they expected. The desire to go was so low that the government sponsored national campaigns to drive up enthusiasm. With documentaries and press releases more akin to wartime propaganda than industrial recruitment, authorities fought to lure more workers to the site. A major source of labor was the deportation of kulaks, peasant people who were perceived to own more than others, thus qualifying them as traitors to the ideals of communism. As punishment for their misdoings, real or imagined, many were sent to work on the construction of the giant city. Despite general dislike for the project, the work performed by many was legendary, with workers struggling around the clock to complete building construction in freezing temperatures. Eventually the sense of commitment to work the cadre desired was fostered, with many work brigades holding competitions to achieve the most progress. Dam construction became an epic saga in which one could win glory for the nation, never mind the poor quality of the civic planning.

Industrialization- Five Year Fail

Posted on by

The first five year plan was doomed to fail from the start.  It was not directly correlated to the policy of mass collectivization (which also resulted in failure) and or the agricultural crisis as a whole.  But rather the five year plan failed due to lack of logistics and special knowledge to operate heavy machinery.  This coupled with weak national agriculture and widespread food shortage led to hungry workers and no means to refuel lost energy of factory workers.  Stalin would see this as would his agents and would respond with a wide spread push to increase labor and hours.  This would merely contribute to the issue of the first five year plan.  No industrial effort will be successful if the state does not have the food to feed its workers or the knowledge of the machinery leading the revolution.  The plans that would follow would not be any more sufficiently executed as the agricultural aspect is a constant lingering theme for Stalin’s policies.

Soviet Industrialization and Magnitostroi

Posted on by

“It is a grandiose factory for remaking people. Yesterday’s peasant…becomes a genuine proletarian…fighting for the quickest possible completion of the laying of socialism’s foundation. You are an unfortunate person, my dear reader, if you have not been to Magnitostroi.” ((Stephen Kotkin, “Peopling Magnitostroi: The Politics of Demography, in Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization. ((Berkeley:  University of California Press, 1993: 63))) These are the compelling opening lines of Kotkin’s chapter, “Peopling Magnitostroi: The Politics of Demography.” The unknown correspondent’s words were persuasive; however, was this the true story of Magnitostroi. A steel plant situated miles from cultured society, populated by a handful of people, deficient in basic commodities and resources, and extreme housing shortages. Notwithstanding the extreme working conditions of -20 to -40 degrees made it a truly modern industrial paradise!

The recruitment strategies of extra pay and free transportation worked to a certain extent, but workers would quickly leave as soon as their contracts were exhausted. As time continued, the recruitment results plummeted. In the opening days of this project, the population was to consist of volunteer workers, however, just as in the collectivization of farms it quickly turned to mandates of forced workers populating the official state needs. The young, unskilled, male populaces were typically former villagers with little or no education. ((Stephen Kotkin, “Peopling Magnitostroi: The Politics of Demography,” in Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization. ((Berkeley:  University of California Press, 1993: 75))) A workforce made up of mere peasants and the goal was to establish a strong nationwide proletariat, which these uneducated peasants could not fulfill hence the need to remake people. Training initiatives done in true “new” Bolshevik style sometimes the training was for a skill for which the material was not available for use by the workers. This did not seem to matter because the goal was only to attempt to train workers to work more efficiently and as a team.

Russia was behind in the global industrialization movement. Stalin desired to catch up to the western world as quickly as possible. Unfortunately as the Magnitostroi highlights the speed of changes without thinking of what complications these decrees would initiate did not launch Russia forward, but could have actually hindered their long term achievement of modernization. Stalin’s regime with an exorbitant amount of power centralized at the top was as Lewin notes, “allowed to operate independently of economic criteria and results.” ((Moshe Lewin, “On Soviet Industrialization,” in William G. Rosenberg and Lewis H. Sieglebaum (ed.) Social Dimensions of Soviet Industrialization. ((Indian University Press, 1993: 277)))Thereby allowing massive amounts of materials to be wasted which included workers time. Without the NEP there was no incentive for workers to work harder, basically, they needed to appear busy. The bureaucracy grew beyond control allowing bureaucratic drift to expunge more resources than needed and ensure that they kept their positions. Let us not forget that most of these workers were in relatively newly acquired positions and incapable of completely understanding or dealing with these responsibilities. The nation was in turmoil and the constant demand for continued changes only exasperated this state. Could Stalin have had more success if he had not eliminated all of the intellectuals? Those men would have taken time to consider the full implications of their actions before decreeing every sector of the nation to change. Lenin showed incite before his death when writing that, “he was not sure whether Stalin could be always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution.” ((“Lenin’s Testament.” New York Times. 18 October, 1926.))) What would the history of Russia be today if the party had listened?

 

Problems with Collectivization

Posted on by

The goal of collectivization in the Soviet Union was to consolidate individual land and labors into collective farms. Stalin stated collectivization was politically necessary, Stalin also stated that collectivization needed to be gradual and voluntary, two things it was not. The landless peasants were meant to benefit the most form collectivization, since they were to be given an equal share of the profits. The problem was most peasants were not landless and they did not want to have to give up their lands and sell their harvest at the minimal price, and most peasants were forced into collectivization against their will. Collectivization also created many social changes, which lead to even more discontent and resistance among the peasants. When it first began collectivization was successful in harvesting enough to feed the urban population, this success lead the Central Committee to expand collectivization, ignoring Stalin’s earlier statement that collectivization should be gradual.

Bismarck & German Unity

Posted on by

Author: Otto Von Bismarck. He was once known for starting multiple wars against neighboring nations, most of the wars he started (against France and Austria) were done so when he was in power in Prussia. He would eventually become Germany’s Chancellor/leader.

Context: Most of his writing was written after Prussia’s war against Austria. Prussia had essentially won the war against Austria. While most of his fellow Prussians were writing about continuing the campaign of the annihilation of Austria, Bismarck’s writing indicated he felt a need to unify both factions.

Language: His writing seems to be clear but at the same time merciful, yet powerful. He stresses the importance of the unification of Germany and how its their destiny to flourish.

Audience: It seems that the audience is other German nations and the anyone willing to listen to his statements. Essentially anyone who feels the need for unity in Germany.

Intent: Within  the text, he indicates he writes to simply unify Germany under a Prussian ruler… obviously indicating he wishes to stay in power after the unification of Germany.

Message: The message Otto von Bismarck makes clear is that it is pointless to fight against people who are basically from the same background (Austria) and that the feud between Prussia and Austria will allow nations around Prussia or Austria to strike. He wants there to be peace so they could eventually fight off any nations threatening this ideal unified nation.

… But why?: It is clear he wrote most of this in order to make Prussia/Germany even more powerful and the easiest way would be to make a very sympathetic message about unifying with Austria. It is clear he wants to be part of a bigger and more powerful country and proclaims God will grace him/the country.