Charles Bettelheim Class Struggles in the USSR Second Period: 1923-1930 [Section 3 -- Sec. 1, 2 and 3 of Part 3]

page 7




  Key to abbreviations, initials, and Russian
  words used in the text

Artel	A particular form of producers' cooperative
Cadet party	The Constitutional Democratic Party
CLD	See STO
Cheka	Extraordinary Commission (political police)
Glavk	One of the chief directorates in the Supreme Council of the National Economy or in a people's commissariat
Gosplan	State Planning Commission
GPU	State Political Administration (political police)
Kulak	A rich peasant, often involved in capitalist activities of one kind or another, such as hiring out agricultural machinery, trade, moneylending, etc.
Mir	The village community
Narkomtrud	People's Commissariat of Labor
NEP	New Economic Policy
NKhSSSRv	National Economy of the USSR in (a certain year or period)
NKVD	People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs
OGPU	Unified State Political Administration (political police)
Orgburo	Organization Bureau of the Bolshevik Party
Politburo	Political Bureau of the Bolshevik Party
Rabfak	Workers' Faculty
Rabkrin	See RKI
RCP(B)	Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik): official
page 8
	name of the Bolshevik Party, adopted by the Seventh Party Congress in March 1918
RKI	Workers' and Peasants' Inspection
RSDLP	Russian Social Democratic Labor Party
RSDLP(B)	Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolshevik)
RSFSR	Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic
Skhod	General assembly of a village
Sovkhoz	State farm
Sovnarkhoz	Regional Economic Council
Sovnarkom	Council of People's Commissars
SR	Socialist Revolutionary
STO	Council of Labor and Defense
Uchraspred	Department in the Bolshevik Party responsible for registering the members and assigning them to different tasks
Uyezd	County
Volost	Rural district
VSNKh	Supreme Economic Council
VTsIK	All-Russia Central Executive Committee (organ derived from the Congress of soviets)
Zemstvo	Administrative body in country areas before the Revolution

page 187





   Part 3
     The contradictions and class struggles in
     the industrial and urban sectors

    The "procurement crisis" may look as though it was an internal crisis of Soviet agriculture. Interpreted in this way, it seems to have been due, fundamentally, to the state of the relations between classes and of the productive forces in the countryside toward the end of the 1920s: the relations between classes were marked by the dominant position held by the kulaks at that time, which enabled them to dictate their conditions for supplying food to the towns, and the productive forces in agriculture which had reached a "ceiling" that could be surpassed only by means of a rapid change in the conditions of production -- by mechanization of agricultural work, which, if it was not to benefit mainly the kulaks, required collectivization. According to this way of seeing the problem, the "procurement crisis" necessarily entailed the "emergency measures," followed by a rapid process of collectivization, which one had to be ready to impose on the peasants should they prove unwilling to accept it voluntarily -- hence the thesis of the "economic necessity" of a "revolution from above."[1]

    This "economistic" interpretation of the procurement crisis assumes that the NEP was not a road that allowed the middle peasants to assume really the central position in the countryside; that it did not enable the Soviet government to help the poor and middle peasants to improve their conditions of production while gradually taking the road of cooperation and collectivization; or else that "economic exigencies" made it impossible to show patience in dealing with the peasantry.

    As we have seen, this "economistic" interpretation is false.[2] At the end of the 1920s the kulaks did not hold a dominant economic position in the countryside and production by the

page 188

poor and middle peasants could have been increased considerably by helping these peasants to organize themselves and by following a different policy with respect to supplies and prices.

    The procurement crisis was not a crisis inherent in agriculture, but a crisis of relations between town and country due to mistakes committed in the practice of the worker-peasant alliance. This crisis was bound up with the internal contradictions of the industrial and urban sectors, the fashion in which these contradictions were understood, and the way with which they were dealt.



  Notes

1.

This "economistic" thesis is usually complemented by a thesis regarding the "military necessities" dictated by the international situation, both of these theses being upheld at the present time in the USSR (see, e.g., Istoriya KPSS v rezolyutsiyakh, vol. IV, pt. 2, p. 593). The "economistic" thesis is also defended in West Germany by W. Hofmann, in Die Arbeitsverfassung der Soviet Union, p. 8, and Stalinismus und Antikommunismus, p. 34 (quoted by R. Lorenz, Sozialgeschichte der Sowjetunion 1917-1945, p. 348). It coincides with the position of J. Elleinstein, in his Histoire de l'URSS, voI. 2: Le Socialisme dans un seul pays (1922-1939), p. 118, who adds, however, that: "The whole problem lay in deciding the pace at which this programme was to be carried out, and the methods to be employed."    [p. 188]

2.

Furthermore, as is known, neither the emergency measures nor collectivization, as it was carried out, enabled the difficulties in agriculture to be quickly overcome: on the contrary, agricultural production declined and stagnated for more than ten years.    [p. 188]









page 189





  1. The direct manifestations of the
     contradictions in the industrial and
     urban sectors

    The internal contradictions of the industrial and urban sectors manifested themselves directly in the spheres of prices, wages, accumulation, and currency. The phenomena in question were not, of course, due solely to these contradictions, the results of which need to be analyzed, but also resulted from a particular policy that was followed. This in its turn was a consequence of the ways in which reality was perceived -- of the class struggles, that is, that were waged around real relations and the ways in which these struggles were perceived. In the present chapter we shall confine ourselves to describing the direct effects of the contradictions and the way with which these were dealt.



   I.  Selling price and cost of production in
     industry

    One of the immediate purposes of the NEP was to improve the living conditions of the peasant masses and strengthen the conditions under which the poor and middle peasants carried on their farming. By realizing this aim it was hoped to consolidate the worker-peasant alliance, reduce the economic, political, and ideological roles played by the kulaks, and create conditions favorable to the development of cooperatives and of large-scale collectivization.

    Among the economic conditions required for the realization of this aim was a closing of the "scissors," by lowering the prices of industrial goods and supplying the countryside with

page 190

the industrial goods the peasant masses needed. As we have seen, this aim had been attained only partially and provision ally, and toward the end of the NEP period there was even a serious setback to its realization.[1]

    An important point needs to be made here: in 1928-1929 the retail prices of industrial goods, which until then had been falling, started to rise. If the "scissors" still tended to close, this was due to the fact that agricultural prices were rising faster than industrial prices.[2]

    The rise in industrial prices did not accord with the "aims of the price policy." It resulted, in the first place, from an increase in demand to which no adequate increase in supply corresponded. The "inflationary" nature of the increase in industrial retail prices is clearly shown by the fact that it occurred despite a fall in industrial wholesale prices.[3] This fall was dictated to the state-owned industries by a policy still aimed at "closing the scissors" and stabilizing prices.

    After 1926-1927 an imbalance began to appear. Already in that year the percentage increase in the cash income of the population exceeded that of the increase in industrial products available for sale by 3.8 points.[4] The process thus begun continued in the following year, which explains why a new period then opened in the evolution of prices.

    As we know, the imbalance between the supply of and demand for industrial products affected the peasantry more than any other section.

    The situation we have described was bound up with the contradictions in the industrial policy pursued by the Bolshevik Party from 1926 on. This accorded increasing priority to growth in accumulation and production by heavy industry, while at the same time increasing urban incomes, especially wages. On the one hand, this was a source of increased demand to which there was no adequate material counterpart. On the other hand, for lack of a parallel increase in the productivity of labor, costs of production in industry were swollen, and this prevented the simultaneous realization of two aims which were then being pursued by the Soviet government: an increase in industry's capacity to finance a substantial propor-

page 191

tion of investment, which was being increased at a rapid rate, and continued pursuit of the policy of reducing the production costs and the wholesale prices of industrial goods.

    The reduction in costs of production in industry was, on the whole, much less than had been provided for by the plans, and much less than was needed to meet the requirements of the policy being followed in the sphere of wholesale prices and the financing of investment in industry. The following table illustrates the problems that arose:

Increase or reduction of industrial costs  (percentage of previous year) [5]
	1925-1926	1926-1927	1927-1928	1928-1929
Planned Realized	-7  +1.7	-5  -1.8	-6  -5.1	-7   -4 to 4.5

    A considerable proportion of the reduction of costs of production in industry was due either to factors external to industry (reduction in costs of raw materials, or in taxes) or to accounting adjustments (calculation of depreciation and over head charges),[6] so that the share represented by wages in costs of production tended to increase. It should be noted that in 1926-1927 average cost of production in industry was twice as high as prewar, whereas the wholesale prices of industrial products had not reached this level.[7] From this followed both industry's low degree of capacity to finance its own investments and the limits bounding the policy of reducing industrial wholesale prices.

    The high level of costs of production was due to some extent to the inflation in the members of administrative personnel in charge of production units, enterprises, and trusts. This phenomenon was denounced by the Party, which issued calls for a "struggle against bureaucracy." In practice, however, no such "struggle" was waged by the working masses. It was left to other administrative organs, which were far from effective in carrying out this task. Moreover, the attempts made to strengthen controls, by developing systems of accounting and reporting to the planning organs and establishing departments for studying and analyzing the time taken to produce goods,

page 192

increased the burden of administration in the state industrial sector, while the result hoped for from these innovations were far from being achieved. However, the decisive factor in the increase in costs of production in industry during this period was the increase in wages which was not accompanied by comparable increases in output or productivity.



  II.  Wages and productivity of labor in
      industry

    According to the figures given by Stalin in the political report of the CC to the Fifteenth Party Congress, the average real wage (social services included) in 1926-1927 was 128.4 percent that of prewar.[8] In the same period, productivity of labor in industry had not [reached] the 1913 level.[9] During the next two years the situation stayed approximately the same, with wages and productivity in industry increasing at roughly the same pace.[10]

    The increase in wages, despite the presence of a considerable body of unemployed toward the end of the NEP period, testifies to the political role that the working class now played. But, at the same time, the relation between this increase and the increase in productivity testifies to the contradictions in the economic policy then being followed. At a time when what was being emphasized was the need to increase accumulation mainly from industry's own resources, while narrowing the "scissors" between industrial and agricultural prices, the increase in the cost of wages borne by industrial production prevented either of these aims from being realized.

    As regards relations between the working class and the peasantry, the development just described had negative consequences: it helped to widen, to the disadvantage of the peasants (most of whom had a standard of living lower than that of the workers), the disparity between economic conditions in town and country. From 1928 on this disparity was

page 193

still further widened by the shortage of industrial goods and the priority given to the towns (except for short periods and only very locally) in the distribution of manufactured products.

    In this way, contradictions developed which at first manifested themselves in the form of a process of inflation.



   III.  The inflationary process and its
      immediate origins

    The immediate origins of the inflationary process are not hard to detect. They lie in the increase in investments and unproductive expenditure which was both rapid and out of proportion with the "financial results" realized by the state sector. This can be illustrated by certain figures.

    Between 1925-1926 (the first year of the "reconstruction period") and 1928-1929, the total amount of budgetary expenditure, in current roubles, more than doubled,[11] which meant an increase of 30 percent each year.

    In the same years, the increase in the volume of industrial production destined for consumption and derived from "census industry"[12] slowed down. This production, which increased by 38 percent in 1926, increased by only about 18 percent in 1927 and in 1928.[13] It was still a remarkable increase -- but not enough to cope with the increase in cash incomes, especially since there was a slowing-down in production by small-scale industry after 1927-1928.[14]

    Altogether, in contrast to an increase of 34 percent in wages between 1925-1926 and 1927-1928, a fresh increase of about 14 percent in the following year,[15] and to the increase mentioned in budgetary expenditure, real national income was increasing at a much slower pace -- a little over 7 percent per year between 1925-1926 and 1928-1929.[16]

    Thus, the last years of the NEP period were marked by an increasing gap between the growth in distributed income and the growth in the quantity of goods available for consumption.

page 194

The existence of this gap was closely connected with the rapid increase in gross investment in the state sector and with the way in which this investment was financed.

    Investments, not all of which passed through the budget, increased 2.75 times between 1925-1926 and 1929.[17] The larger part of these investments would not result in increased production until several years had gone by. They therefore involved outlays of cash which, for the time being, had no counterpart in production. Here was the hub of the inflationary process, for the state and cooperative sector provided to an ever smaller extent for its own expanded reproduction -- as we can see clearly when we examine the evolution of profits in state industry, and compare the resources which it contributed to the financial system with those it drew from it.

    Between 1924-1925 and 1926-1927, net profits (i.e., the difference between the profits and the losses of the various industrial enterprises) evolved as follows:

Net balance of profits from state industries [18] (in millions of roubles)
1924-1925	1925-1926	1926-1927
364	536	539

    The increase was substantial in 1925-1926, but minimal in 1926-1927. In any case, these amounts were less and less adequate to meet the needs of financing the industrial sector. Down to 1924-1925 the latter had supplied to the financial system resources (in taxes, payments of profits into the exchequer, subscriptions to state loans, payments into the state bank, etc.) which were almost equivalent to those it obtained from the financial system in order to cover its needs. In that year, the net contribution of the financial system to the needs of the industrial sector came to only 20 million roubles, or 11.6 percent of the amount contributed by industry to the financial system.[19]

    After 1925-1926, when the period of reconstruction and the policy of industrialization began, the situation was completely transformed. In 1926-1927 the financial system's contribution

page 195

to the needs of the industrial sector exceeded the contribution of industry to the financial system by nearly 35 percent, and thereafter the latter furnished even larger resources to industry. Current financial resources proved inadequate, and it was necessary to issue paper money. A rapid increase took place in the amount of money in circulation, which rose from 1,157 million roubles on July 1, 1926, to 2,213 million roubles on July 1, 1929.[20] This increase was out of all proportion to the increase in the national income. It meant a real inflation of the currency, which gave rise to important economic imbalances and political contradictions.

    What has been described here was due, of course, to deeper underlying social contradictions, and resulted from the way with which these contradictions were dealt. It is these realities which must now be analyzed.



  Notes

1.	See above, pp. 145 ff., 150 ff.    [p. 190]
2.	In a single year, the former rose by 17.2 percent and the latter by 2.5 percent.    [p. 190]
3.	During the years under consideration here the wholesale prices of industrial goods fell regularly, but more and more slowly (in 1928-1929 their index stood at 185.3, with 1913 as 100). The gap between the index of industrial retail prices and wholesale prices tended to close until 1927-1928, but then opened again in 1928-1929, which shows that there was a demand in excess of supply, at the prices then being asked. For the evolution of industrial wholesale prices, see E. Zaleski, Planning, p. 398.    [p. 190]
4.	Calculated from Table 33 in S. Grosskopf, L'Alliance ouvrière, p. 201, quoting the figures of G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, Desyat let, pp. 76-77.    [p. 190]
5.	From Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 954. These writers quote the Soviet sources from which their table was compiled.    [p. 191]
6.	See, for example, the evolution of the factors in costs of production in industry shown in ibid., p. 345, n. 8.    [p. 191]
7.	Byulleten Konyunkturnogo Instituta, nos. 11-12 (1927); Osnov-
page 196
	noye Problemy Kontrolnykh Tsifry (1929-1930), p. 158; A. Baykov, The Soviet Economic System, pp. 123 ff.    [p. 191]
8.	Stalin, Works, vol. 10, p. 322.  [Transcriber's Note: See Stalin's "The Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)". -- DJR]    [p. 192]
9.	I. Lapidus and K. Ostrovityanov, Outline of Political Economy, p. 127.    [p. 192]
10.	Ekonomicheskoye Obozreniye, no. 10 (1929), p. 143; no. 12 (1929), p. 204; and Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 957, 958 (and also p. 539). Actually, from January 1928 on the way in which real wages were calculated was less and less relevant to the true conditions of the working class. These calculations were based on the official price level, but, starting in 1928, supplies became irregular, a black market developed, and workers were obliged to buy many of the goods they needed at prices which were higher than in the "socialized" sector. It is to be observed that whereas in January 1927 the disparity between the price indices in the socialized and private sectors was 30 points (1913 = 100), this disparity spread to 50 points in January 1928 and to 84 in January 1929 (ibid., p. 964)    [p. 192]
11.	Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 974.    [p. 193]
12.	"Census industry" comprised those industrial production units which employed 16 or more workers, if they used mechanical motive power, and 30 or more workers if they were without such power. Units of production outside this category constituted "small-scale industry." There were, however, some exceptions to this criterion of classification.    [p. 193]
13.	Baykov, The Soviet Economic System, p. 121; Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 948.    [p. 193]
14.	I shall come back to this question in the next chapter.    [p. 193]
15.	Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 978.    [p. 193]
16.	Calculated from ibid., p. 977, and Bettelheim, La Planification soviétique, p. 268.    [p. 193]
17.	Proportions calculated by Bettelheim, ibid., p. 268.    [p. 194]
18.	Baykov, The Soviet Economic System, p. 118.    [p. 194]
19.	Ibid., p. 119.    [p. 194]
20.	Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 976.    [p. 195]









page 197





  2. The contradictions between the private
     sector and the state sector in industry
     and trade

    Between 1921 and 1925 the policy of development and accumulation in the state sector of industry laid down limited objectives which this sector was capable of accomplishing mainly from its own resources. During this period the Bolshevik Party managed to cope, without too much difficulty, with the contradictions that opposed the private sector to the state sector in industry and trade. The state sector developed, as a whole, faster than the private sector, and strengthened positions which, by and large, were already dominant. This consolidation was due principally to the dynamism shown by the state sector, which also enjoyed priority support from the banks. In that period the fundamental principles of the NEP were respected, even though in some towns the local authorities introduced regulations which more or less paralyzed the private sector.[1] From the end of 1925 there was a change. The efforts made to develop the state sector of industry were increased, and tended (contrary to the resolutions of the Party's congresses and conferences) to be concentrated in a one-sided way upon heavy industry and upon projects which required long periods of construction before entering the phase of production. Furthermore, as we have seen, the scale of this effort at development called for financial resources that exceeded what state industry and trade could mobilize from their own resources; therefore, imbalances between supply and demand were created, and inflationary pressure built up. Under these conditions, the private sector in industry and trade was placed in an exceptionally advantageous position.

    The shortage of goods enabled private traders to increase their selling prices, while the prices they paid for supplies

page 198

obtained from the state sector fell as a result of the continuing policy of reducing industrial wholesale prices. Thus, private trade was able to increase its profits to a considerable extent by appropriating a growing fraction of the value produced in the state sector.

    Private industry also profited from the goods shortage, by increasing its selling prices while continuing to receive some of its means of production relatively cheaply from the state sector of industry.

    Thus, at the very moment when the gap was widening seriously between the volume of financial resources directly at the disposal of state-owned industry and what was needed in order to attain the investment aims laid down for it, profits in the private sector of industry and trade were tending to rise sharply. Moreover, this sector was using material resources which were, to an increasing extent, lacking in the state sector. Although the NEP was not officially abandoned, in order to cope with this situation, from 1926 on ever more numerous measures were taken to cut down the activity and resources of the private sector in industry and trade.

    Some of these measures were financial, taking the form of increased taxes and forced loans exacted from the private industrialists and traders. The amounts taken from them in this way rose from 91 million roubles in 1925-1926 to 191 million in 1926-1927.[2] Other measures assumed the form of regulations -- even penal measures, on the ground that many traders and industrialists were violating Soviet law. After 1926 the administrative organs responsible for approving leases and concessions and issuing patents withdrew some of the authorizations they had previously granted.

    However, these measures were introduced without any overall plan, and, in particular, without the state and cooperative sector being fully in a position to take the place of the private enterprises whose activity was being brought to a halt. Consequently, there was a worsening of the shortages from which the population suffered, and in the unsatisfactory supply of goods to certain localities and regions. This deteriora-

page 199

tion affected principally the rural areas. In order to appreciate what it meant we must examine some figures.



   I.  The different forms of ownership in
     industry and how they evolved

    Soviet industrial statistics of the NEP period distinguished between four "sectors," in accordance with type of ownership of enterprises: state, cooperative, private, or foreign concession.

    In census industry, on the eve of the final crisis of the NEP (1926-1927), the state sector was predominant, followed, a long way behind, by the cooperative sector. In percentages, production by the different sectors of census industry[3] was as follows:

Percentages of gross production, in current prices, furnished by the sectors of census industry in 1926-1927 [4]
	State industry Cooperative industry Private industry Industry operated as   foreign concessions	91.3 6.4 1.8   0.5

    In census industry the state and cooperative sectors thus predominated massively. As a result, the Soviet government possessed, up to a certain point, the power to dictate -- momentarily, at least -- a reduction in the wholesale prices of most industrial products, despite the inflation of costs and of demand. Actually, this power was far from being "absolute": its effect was mainly to delay increases in wholesale prices of industrial products. It is to be observed that by 1928-1929, as a result of the measures taken from 1926 on, the place occupied by the nonstate sectors in census industry was reduced to less than 1 percent.

page 200

    In small-scale industry the nonstate sector played a major role in 1926-1927. Here are the figures:

Percentages of gross production, in current prices, furnished by the sectors of small-scale industry in 1926-1927 [5]
	State industry Cooperative industry Private industry	2 19 79

    The big place occupied by private industry prevented the Soviet government from exercising sufficient control over the prices of its products. Some additional information is called for here:

    1.  In 1926-1927 the value of private industry's production was far from negligible. Taking industry as a whole, it amounted to 4,391 million in current roubles, which represented about 19.7 percent of that year's productions.[6]

    2.  However -- and this is a vital point -- within private industry, production was mainly handicraft production and thus not based upon the exploitation of wage labor. According to a study by the economist D. Shapiro, 85 percent of the small-scale enterprises employed no wage workers.[7]

    3.  From the angle of employment, small-scale industry played a considerable role,[8] but the earnings of the craftsmen contributed little to the inflation of demand: their incomes were of the same order as those of the peasants. A large proportion of small-scale industry was not "urban" but "rural": it was an important complement to the urban sector of industry, but it was also in competition with the latter.

    As we know, the principle governing the policy followed during the NEP period was favorable to small-scale industry. This orientation was inspired by what Lenin wrote at the beginning of the NEP, when he emphasized the need for "generating the utmost local initiative in economic development -- in the gubernias, still more in the uyezds, still more in the volosts and villages -- for the special purpose of immediately improving peasant farming, even if by 'small'

page 201

means, on a small scale, helping it by developing small local industry.' He pointed out that moving on to a further stage would necessitate the fulfillment of a number of conditions, in particular a large-scale development of electric power production, which would itself demand a period of at least ten years to carry out the initial phase of the electrification plan.[9] In 1926, and even in 1928, they were still a very long way from having fulfilled this condition, and small-scale industry was still absolutely indispensable.

    The small-scale industry of the NEP period assumed extremely diverse forms: handicraft, private capitalist (within certain limits), or directed by local organizations (the mir, or the rural or district soviet). Lenin was, above all, in favor of the last.[10] He also favored "small commodity-producers' cooperatives," which, he said, were "the predominant and typical form in a small-peasant country."[11]

    Down to 1926-1927 the development of small-scale industry encountered only relatively limited hindrances, the pur pose of which was to prevent the spread of a private industrial sector of a truly capitalist sort. However, the aid given to small-scale industry remained slight, and small producers' cooperatives and the initiatives of local organizations developed only slowly -- mainly, under the authority of the "land associations".

    Actually, small-scale industry, and handicraft industry in particular, had not recovered its prewar level of production.[12] Craft enterprises had difficulty in getting supplies, owing to competition from state-owned industry, which enjoyed a certain priority. In this matter the policy recommended by Lenin was not fully implemented, and the practices which developed from 1926 on departed farther and farther from that policy. This made it increasingly difficult for the peasants to obtain consumer goods and small items of farm equipment.

    As principle, however, Lenin's directives remained the order of the day right down to 1927. Thus, in May of that year the Sovnarkom denounced "the unpardonable negligence shown by the public economic services in face of the problems of small-scale industry and the handicrafts."[13] Nevertheless,

page 202

the "problems" in question were not solved. In fact, the small enterprises found themselves increasingly up against the will to dominate shown by the heads of state-owned industry. The latter fought to increase their supplies, their markets, and the profits of the enterprises they directed. In this fight they enjoyed the support of the economic administrative services, whose officials were closely linked with the leadership of the state enterprises.

    Starting in 1927-1928, regardless of the resolutions officially adopted in favor of small-scale industry and the handicrafts, the organs of the economic administration took a series of measures whose effect would deprive small-scale industry of an increasing proportion of the raw materials it had been receiving until then, and would cause the complete closure of some of the small production units. This slowing-down of production by small-scale industry took place without any preparation, and under conditions which aggravated the difficulties of agriculture, since the activities of the rural craftsmen had helped and stimulated agricultural production and exchange.

    In practice, the final phase of the NEP period was increasingly marked by the dominance of a type of industrial development that was centered on large-scale industry. This development was profoundly different from what Lenin had recommended for decades: it was costlier in terms of the investment required, demanded much longer construction periods, was qualitatively less diversified, and entailed bigger transport costs.

    The dominance of this type of industrial development was supported by the trade unions, which saw in it the guarantee of an increase in the number of wage workers and, as has been mentioned, it was also favored by the heads of the large-scale enterprises and the state administration. The pressure exercised in favor of this line of development assumed several ideological forms. The "superiority" of large-scale industry was regularly invoked, together with the idea that an enlargement of the working class would ensure consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The need for struggle against

page 203

the petty bourgeoisie was also a favorite theme of the partisans of large-scale industry. Thus, in this period many small producers were doomed to unemployment, while the administrative apparatus was being enlarged and the power of the heads of large-scale industry increased.

    Between 1927 and the end of 1929,[14] then, the growing difficulties of small-scale industry resulted mainly from the practices of the state organs and the heads of large-scale enterprises, and not from the policy which had been affirmed by the Soviet government in 1927. These difficulties were connected with a class struggle which set the nascent state bourgeoisie, indifferent to the needs of the masses, against the small producers, and the craftsmen in particular. Thus, the policy actually followed was in contradiction with the principles proclaimed, and it enabled large-scale industry to put rural industry in a more and more awkward situation, by reducing the peasants' opportunities for obtaining supplies and by contributing to the gravity of the final crisis of the NEP. Here, too, this crisis is seen to be bound up with the de facto abandonment of some of the principles of the New Economic Policy.



  II.  The different forms of ownership in the
      sphere of trade, and how they evolved

    During the NEP period trade also was shared among several "sectors."

    In wholesale trade private enterprises realized only 5.1 per cent of the total turnover in 1926-1927, and this share was quickly reduced in the following years. The major part of wholesale trade was in the hands of the state and cooperative organs, which accounted for 50.2 and 44.7 percent, respectively, of the total turnover in 1926-1927.[15]

    As for retail trade, the share taken by the private sector was still an important one in 1926-1927. It then stood at 36.9 percent: cooperative trade dominated this sphere, with 49.8

page 204

percent of the turnover, while state trading activity played a minor role.[16] In retail trade, moreover, the cooperatives were less subject to control than in the sphere of wholesale trade.

    In an inflationary situation the relatively important role played by private retail trade meant that reductions in wholesale prices brought little benefit to consumers. The years 1922-1928 even saw the retail prices of industrial goods rising while wholesale prices were still falling. These practices on the part of private traders explain, to some extent, the administrative decisions to close down a number of private sales points and the decline to 13.5 percent in 1928-1929 of the "private" share of the retail trade turnover.[17]

    Here, too, the measures were taken without any preparation -- either by withdrawing licenses to trade or by creating difficulties for transport by rail of goods being marketed by private traders. From 1926-1927 on, tens of thousands of "commercial units" disappeared in this way, most of them being pedlars or petty itinerant merchants who mainly served the rural areas. In the RSFSR alone the number of "private commercial units" declined from 226,760 in 1926-1927 to 159,254 in 1927-1928; but the number of state and cooperative "commercial units" also declined in the same period.[18] This development contributed to the worsening of relations between town and country and to the procurement crisis. It was also one of the factors in the final crisis of NEP.

    The measures taken to close down "sales points" without replacing them were contrary to the policy which had been officially proclaimed. Not only had the Thirteenth Party Congress, in May 1924, already warned against measures taken in relation to private trade which would hinder the development of exchange[19] and perpetuate, or even widen, the "blank spaces,"[20] but these same warnings had been included in a resolution of the CC which met in February 1927.[21] They were repeated by the Fifteenth Congress in December 1927, which stressed that the ousting of private trade by state and cooperative trade must be adapted to the material and organizational capacities of these forms of trade, so as not to cause a break in the exchange network or to interrupt the provision of supplies.[22]

page 205

    In practice these warnings were ignored, partly for ideological reasons (the elimination of private trade, like that of private industry, even if their services were not replaced, was then regarded as a development of socialist economic forms[23] and partly through the pressure exercised by the heads of the state trading organs. The latter tended to boost the role and importance of the organs in which they worked by arranging for the maximum quantity of goods to be handled by these organs and without concerning themselves with the more or less balanced distribution of these goods, especially between town and country.

    Thus, from 1926 on, a de facto retreat from the NEP gradually took place in trade and industry. This retreat proceeded as an objective process that was largely independent of the decisions taken by the highest authorities of the Bolshevik Party. Under these conditions, the process went forward without preparation, and resulted in effects prejudicial to the worker-peasant alliance as well as to the supply of industrial goods to the rural areas. All this contributed to increase the dimensions of the procurement crisis which broke out in 1927-1928.



   III.  The factors determining the
      abandonment of the NEP in trade
      and industry from 1926 on

    The turn made in 1926 in the Bolshevik Party's practice with regard to private industry and trade corresponded to an accentuation of the social contradictions and the class struggle. This accentuation had a number of aspects.

    1.  A fundamental aspect was the sharpening of the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, through the growing hostility of wide sections of the working class towards the "Nepmen." This hostility was stimulated by the rise in retail prices which occurred in the private sector and the increases in speculators' profits resulting from these price-rises. In the industrial sector the struggle between the

page 206

workers employed in private enterprises and their capitalist employers was a permanent factor, but there is no obvious evidence that the struggle in this sphere was becoming more acute. In any case, only a very small fraction of the Soviet working class worked in the private sector. They numbered between 150,000 and 180,000, and made up only 4.2 percent of the membership of the trade unions, at a time when 88 percent of the working class was organized in trade unions.[24]

    2.  Another aspect of the accentuation of class struggles was the development of a growing contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie in private industry and trade, on the one hand, and, on the other, the heads of state-owned industry. The latter were obliged to accomplish the tasks assigned to them by the plans for industrial development, and yet the financial and material means put at their disposal were insignificant. The reduction, or complete elimination, of the private sector thus looked to them like a way of enabling the state-owned enterprises to take over the resources possessed by the private industrialists and traders, and also by the craftsmen.

    3.  From 1926 on an increasingly acute contradiction developed between the content of the industrial plans -- their scope, the priorities they laid down, the techniques they favored -- and the continuation of the NEP, which would have required the adoption of industrial plans with a different content.

    The development of this last contradiction played a decisive role in aggravating those previously mentioned, but it had itself a twofold class significance:

    1.  On the ideological plane, a conception of industrialization was increasingly emphasized which was influenced by the capitalist forms of industrialization. This was connected with the changes then being undergone by the Bolshevik ideological formation. The orientation proposed by Lenin concerning the role to be played (at least for some decades) by small-scale industry, local organizations, and relatively simple techniques was gradually lost sight of. Also forgotten were Lenin's views regarding the need to work out plans which

page 207

took account of the needs of the masses and the material assets actually available, especially in the form of agricultural products.[25]

    Instead of an industrialization plan in conformity with these indications, the conception which increasingly prevailed gave one-sided priority to large-scale industry, heavy industry, and the "most up-to-date" techniques. It thrust the needs of the masses into the background, giving ever greater priority to accumulation, which the plans sought to "maximize," without really taking account of the demands of the development of agriculture and of the balance of exchange between town and country, the material basis of the worker-peasant alliance and, therefore, of the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    2.  This process brings us back to consideration of the production relations in the state sector and the class consequences of these relations. Here, we are at the heart of the contradictions that developed during the years preceding the procurement crisis and the complete abandonment of the NEP. The importance of these contradictions (which concerned mainly the industrial sector) and their fundamental character require that they be subjected to specific analysis. This analysis cannot confine itself to an examination of forms of ownership, but must focus upon the structure of the immediate production process itself and the conditions for reproducing the factors in this process, and also upon the ways in which the production relations were perceived, and their effects upon the class struggles.



  Notes

1.	See N. Valentinov's article, "De la 'NEP' a la collectivisation," in Le Contrat social. (March-April 1964), p. 79.    [p. 197]
2.	Ibid., p. 79.    [p. 198]
3.	On the concept of "census industry," see note 12, p. 196 above.    [p. 199]
4.	Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 950.    [p. 199]
5.	A. Baykov, The Soviet Economic System, p. 124.    [p. 200]
page 208
6.	Calculated from ibid., p. 124, and Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. I, pt. 2, pp. 947, 950.    [p. 200]
7.	Shapiro, "Kustarno-remeslennaya promyshlennost," in Planovoye Khozyaistvo, no. 6 (1927), p. 70 ff., quoted in Grosskopf, L'Alliance ouvrière, p. 334.    [p. 200]
8.	See above, p. 144.    [p. 200]
9.	Lenin, CW, vol. 32, pp. 350, 352.  [Transcriber's Note: See Lenin's "The Tax in Kind". -- DJR] In On Co-operation, Lenin wrote that incorporation of the whole population in cooperatives could be achieved, "at best, . . . in one or two decades" (ibid., vol. 33, p. 470).    [p. 201]
10.	In the conclusion to the pamphlet quoted, Lenin returns to this theme, calling for "the development of local initiative and independent action in encouraging exchange between agriculture and industry" to be "given the fullest scope at all costs" (ibid., p. 364).    [p. 201]
11.	Ibid., p. 347.    [p. 201]
12.	Baykov, The Soviet Economic System, p. 122.    [p. 201]
13.	Izvestiya VTsIK, no. 103 (1927), quoted in Grosskopf, L'Alliance ouvrière, pp. 366-367.    [p. 201]
14.	After 1929 the policy of shutting down private production units became quasiofficial, as a prolongation of the policy of "dekulakisation" which prevailed at that time.    [p. 203]
15.	Kontrolnye tsifry 1926-1927 gg., p. 484, quoted in Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 961.    [p. 203]
16.	Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 962.    [p. 204]
17.	Ibid.    [p. 204]
18.	Voprosy Torgovli, no. 4 (January 1929), pp. 64-65.    [p. 204]
19.	KPSS v rezolyutsiyakh, vol. 1, pp. 840 ff.    [p. 204]
20.	Meaning the areas where private trade had been eliminated without being replaced by state and cooperative trade.    [p. 204]
21.	K.P.S.S. v rezolyutsiyakh, vol. 2, pp. 224 ff.    [p. 204]
22.	Ibid., pp. 351 ff.    [p. 204]
23.	Thus, in his speech to the CC on July 9, 1928, Stalin declared: "We often say that we are promoting socialist forms of economy in the sphere of trade. But what does that imply? It implies that we are squeezing out of trade thousands upon thousands of small and medium traders" (Stalin, Works, vol. 11, p. 178  [Transcriber's Note: See Stalin's "Plenum of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.)". -- DJR]).    [p. 205]
24.	Carr and Davies, Foundations, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 938.    [p. 206]
25.	See Lenin, CW, vol. 32, pp. 372-374: "To Comrade Kryzhizhanovsky, the Presidium of the State Planning Commission" (1921).    [p. 207]









page 209





  3. The forms of ownership in the state
     sector and the structure of the
     immediate production process

    Toward the end of the NEP, state-owned industry consisted mainly of established industrial enterprises which had been nationalized after the October Revolution, together with a small number of new enterprises. It coincided largely with large-scale industry, and was, in the main, directly subject to the central economic organs of the Soviet state -- in practice, the VSNKh.[1] Only a few state-owned industrial enterprises were in the hands of the republics or of regional or local organs. Thus, in 1926-1927, industry directly planned by the VSNKh provided 77 percent of the value of all production by large-scale industry.[2]

    Sale of the goods produced was largely in the hands of a network of state (and official cooperative) organs that were independent of the industrial enterprises. However, during the NEP period, state-owned industry also developed its own organs for wholesale trade, and sometimes even for retail trade. These were usually organized at the level of the unions of enterprises, the Soviet trusts, or at the level of the organs formed by agreements between trusts, unions, and enterprises -- organs known as "sales syndicates."[3]

    Toward the end of the NEP period, industry's sales organs were gradually detached from the industrial enterprises themselves and integrated, in the form of a special administration, in the People's Commissariats to which the enterprises belonged. In particular, the sale of industrial products to the ultimate consumers was to an increasing extent entrusted to state trading bodies separate from industry and operating on the levels of wholesale, semiwholesale, and retail trade. This separation made possible, in principle, better supervision of

page 210

commercial operations by the central state organs. The most important trading bodies came under the People's Commissariat of Trade (Narkomtorg), while others came under the republics of the regions.[4] The fact that these different organs existed, and the conditions under which products circulated among them, reveal the commodity character of production and circulation.

    As Lenin had often emphasized, especially in his discussion of state capitalism,[5] state ownership is not equivalent to socialist ownership. Under conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, statization makes possible a struggle for socialization of production, for real socialist transformation of the production relations. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, state ownership may be a socialist form of ownership, but it cannot remain so except in so far as (given the concrete conditions of class relations) a struggle is waged for the socialist transformation of production relations. So long as this transformation has not been completed, state ownership possesses a twofold nature: it is both a socialist form of ownership, because of the class nature of the state, and a state capitalist form, because of the partly capitalist nature of the existing production relations, the limited extent of transformation undergone by the processes of production and reproduction. If this is lost sight of, the concept of ownership is reduced to its juridical aspect and the actual social significance of the juridical form of ownership, which can be grasped only by analyzing the production relations, is overlooked.[6]

    The starting point for this analysis has to be clarification of the structure of the immediate production process, which can be perceived at the levels of forms of management, discipline, cooperation, and organization of labor.



   I.  The forms of management in the
     state-owned factories

    As regards the forms of management in the state enterprises, we need to recall that at the end of the NEP the measures

page 211

adopted in the spring of 1918 were still in force. We have seen that these measures introduced a system of one-person management of each enterprise, with the manager appointed by the central organs and not subject to workers' control.[7] These measures had been adopted provisionally, in order to combat what Lenin called "the practice of a lily-livered proletarian government."[8]

    In 1926 the difficulties initially encountered in the management of enterprises had been overcome, but the forms of management adopted because of these earlier difficulties remained in force. These forms were not socialist forms: they implied the existence of elements of capitalist relations at the level of the immediate production process itself. Lenin had not hesitated, in 1918, to acknowledge this reality quite plainly. He had defined the adoption of the principle of paying high salaries to managers as "a step backward," leading to a strengthening of capital, since, as he put it, "capital is not a sum of money but a definite social relation." This "step backward" reinforced the "state-capitalist" character of the production relations. Speaking of the establishment of "individual dictatorial powers" (which were to take the form of one-person management), he referred to their importance "from the point of view of the specific tasks of the present moment." He stressed the need for discipline and coercion, mentioning that "the form of coercion is determined by the degree of development of the given revolutionary class."[9] The lower the level of development of this class, the more the form assumed by factory discipline tends to resemble capitalist discipline.

    We must ask ourselves why the Bolshevik Party maintained high salaries for managers and the form of one-person management adopted a few months after the October Revolution, when the conditions which had originally caused these practices to be adopted had passed away.

    The maintenance of this system was clearly connected with the class struggle, with the struggle waged by the heads of enterprises to retain and even strengthen their power and their privileges. However, the way in which this struggle developed, and its outcome, cannot be separated from certain

page 212

features of the Bolshevik ideological formation and the changes which it underwent. These changes led, especially, to decisive importance being accorded to forms of organization and ownership and to less and less attention being given to the development of a real dialectical analysis that could bring out the contradictory nature of reality.

    The Outline of Political Economy by Lapidus and Ostrovityanov gives especially systematic expression to the non-dialectical perception of social relations which was characteristic of the Soviet formation at the end of the 1920s. We shall have to come back to a number of aspects of this way of perceiving the economic and social reality of the USSR; for the moment, let us confine ourselves to the following formulation: "We were guided mainly by the fact that the relations in the two main branches of Soviet economics, the socialist state relations on the one hand, and the simple commodity relations in agriculture, on the other, are fundamentally not capitalist. . . "[10]

    The writers do not deny that there were at that time (1928) "state capitalist and private capitalist elements in the Soviet system,"[11] but they recognize their presence only in the private capitalist enterprises. They thus renounce attempting any analysis of the internal contradictions of the state sector. Such a simplified conception of the production relations prevented correct treatment of the contradictions and socialist transformation of the production relations in the state enterprises. It was all the more considerable an obstacle in that, toward the end of the NEP period, this simplified conception was generally accepted in the Bolshevik Party. After 1926 the state-owned enterprises, instead of being seen (as had been the case previously) as belonging to a "state sector" whose contradictory nature called for analysis, were all described as forming part of a "socialist sector" in which the production relations were not contradictory.

    Here we see one aspect of the changes in the Bolshevik ideological formation. These changes were connected with the struggle of the managers of state enterprises to strengthen their authority and increase their political and social role.

page 213

They cannot be separated from the fact that the increasing extent to which the heads of enterprises were of proletarian origin tended to be identified with progress in the leading role played by the proletariat as a class; whereas this class origin of the managers offered no guarantee of their class position and could, of course, in no way alter the class character of the existing social production relations.

    The nature of the social relations reproduced at the level of the immediate labor process was manifested not only in the type of management exercized in relation to the workers, but also in the way that work norms were fixed, in factory discipline, and in the contradictions that developed in these connections.



  II.  The fixing of work norms from above

    Where work norms are concerned, it is to be noted in the first place that their observance or nonobservance by the workers was to an ever greater extent controlled by variations in the wages paid to them, especially after the extension of piecework approved by a CC resolution of August 19, 1924.[12]

    Large-scale application of this resolution began in 1926, in connection with the demands of the industrial plan, and owing to the tendency for wages to increase faster than productivity. In August 1926 the question of revising the norms was brought up by the heads of enterprises and by the VSNKh, who denounced the increasing spread of the "scissors" between productivity and wages, with the latter rising faster than the former.[13] In October 1926 the Fifteenth Party Conference affirmed the need to revise production norms upward; it also called for a strengthening of labor discipline, so as to deal with the resistance that "certain groups of workers" were putting up against increased norms, and to combat more effectively absenteeism and negligent work.[14]

    At the Seventh Congress of the Trade Unions, held in December 1926, several delegates complained that managers

page 214

were using these resolutions as a pretext for intensifying work to an excessive degree. However, while denouncing abuses which led to "a worsening of the material situation of the workers,"[15] the leaders of the trade unions emphasized mainly the need to raise productivity.

    In 1927 the current in favor of increasing the work norms imposed from above became stronger. It was shown especially in the adoption by the CC, on March 24, 1927, of a resolution devoted to "rationalisation."[16] This resolution was used by the managers and by the economic organs in an effort to impose ever higher work norms, determined by research departments and services specializing in time-and-motion study.

    This procedure tended to reduce the role of collective political work among the workers and to give greater and greater ascendancy to work norms decided upon by "technicians." The resistance with which this tendency met explains why, during the summer of 1927, Kuibyshev, who then became chairman of the VSNKh, called upon that organ to engage more actively in the revision of norms, and not to hesitate in dismissing "redundant" workers.[17]

    At the end of 1927 the revision of work norms was going ahead fast. At the beginning of 1928 the trade unions complained that "in the great majority of cases, the economic organs are demanding complete revision of the norms in all enterprises, which is resulting in wage-cuts."[18]

    Closely linked with the question of norms and the way they were fixed was the question of labor discipline and the relations between the workers and the management personnel in the enterprises. From the beginning of the NEP period this question had given rise to a struggle between two paths, a struggle that was especially confused because what was really at issue in it -- namely, the nature of production relations in the state enterprises -- was not clearly perceived. This confusion explains the contradictory nature of the political line followed in the matter by the Bolshevik Party.

    When we analyze this line we observe a crisscrossing of two "paths" -- one that could lead to a transformation of production relations through developing the initiative of the masses, and

page 215

another that tended to maintain and strengthen the hierarchical forms of labor discipline in the name of the primacy of production. From 1928 on, the second of these "paths" became stronger, and it triumphed decisively in April 1929, with the adoption of the "maximal" variant of the First Five-Year Plan.

    The crisscrossing of these two "paths" demands that, for the sake of greater clarity, we examine each of them separately.



   III.  The class struggle and the struggle to
       transform the production relations

    At the level of the Party leadership, the first explicit manifestation of a line aimed concretely at modifying the relations between the managements of enterprises and the mass of the workers appeared in a resolution adopted by the Thirteenth Party Conference in January 1924. In order to understand the significance of this resolution, however, we need to go back a little and see in what terms the problems dealt with by this resolution had previously been discussed.


   (a)  Managements and trade unions

    The problems explicitly presented were, in the first place, those of the respective roles to be played in the functioning of enterprises, by the management and by the trade unions. It was in this form that the Eleventh Party Congress (1922) had adopted certain positions, in particular by passing a resolution which approved Lenin's theses on "The Role and Functions of the Trade Unions."[19]

    This document dealt with the role to be played by the trade unions in the running of enterprises and the economy as a whole. In the document we can distinguish between a principal aspect, referring to the "present situation" in Soviet Russia, and a secondary aspect (secondary in the sense that it was not urgent at that time), referring to the future.

page 214

    As regards the "present," the document stressed the need to cope as quickly as possible with the consequences of "post-war ruin, famine and dislocation." It declared that "the speediest and most enduring success in restoring large-scale industry is a condition without which no success can be achieved in the general cause of emancipating labour from the yoke of capital and securing the victory of socialism." And it went on: "To achieve this success in Russia, in her present state [my emphasis -- C. B.], it is absolutely essential that all authority in the factories should be concentrated in the hands of management."[20] From this the conclusion was drawn that "Under these circumstances, all direct interference by the trade unions in the management of factories must be regarded as positively harmful and impermissible."[21]

    It is clear that Lenin's theses are concerned with "the present state" of Russia, and that the very way in which he deals with it implies that once the country has emerged from this situation the principles set forth as relevant to it will cease to apply. The "present state" he was writing about was dominated by famine and poverty, from which the Party was trying to rescue the country as soon as possible, leaving a certain number of capitalist relations untouched for the time being.

    The resolution on the trade unions which was adopted by the Eleventh Congress warned, however, against the notion that, even in the immediate present, the trade unions were to be pushed out of the sphere of management altogether. What it condemned was "direct interference," and it made its position clear by saying that "it would be absolutely wrong, however, to interpret this indisputable axiom to mean that the trade unions must play no part in the socialist organization of industry and in the management of state industry."[22]

    The resolution outlines the forms that this participation is to take: the trade unions are to participate in all the organs for managing and administering the economy as a whole; there is to be training and advancement of administrators drawn from the working class and the working people generally; the trade unions are to participate in all the state planning organs in the drawing up of economic plans and programs; and so on.[23]

page 217

    Here, too, the text states clearly that the forms of participation listed are for "the immediate period,"[24] which implies that other forms may develop later on, so that it is one of the Party's tasks "deliberately and resolutely to start persevering practical activities calculated to extend over a long period of years and designed to give the workers and all working people generally practical training in the art of managing the economy of the whole country."[25]


   (b)  The production conferences

    The position adopted at the Eleventh Congress makes clear the significance of the resolution passed in January 1924 by the Thirteenth Party Conference. It was a first step taken toward according a bigger role to the workers in the state enterprises in defining production tasks and the conditions for their fulfillment.

    This resolution urged that regular "production conferences" be held, at which current problems concerning production and the results obtained should be discussed and experience exchanged. The resolution stated that the conferences should be attended by "representatives of the economic organs and of the trade unions and also workers both Party and non Party. "[26] This decision thus tended to subject the managerial activity of the heads of enterprises to supervision no longer by the higher authorities only, but also by the trade unions and the workers, whether Party members or not.

    The Sixth Trades Union Congress (September 1924) and the Fourteenth Party Conference (April 1925) confirmed this line. However, its implementation came up against strong resistance, mainly from the economic organs and the heads of enterprises and trusts.

    On May 15, 1925, a resolution adopted by the CC recognized that the production conferences had not developed in a satisfactory way, that they had not succeeded in bringing together "really broad strata of the workers."[27] The CC issued instructions which it was hoped would improve this state of affairs. Actually, 1925 was a year of economic tension during

page 218

which the power of the trade union organizations was in retreat.

    At the Fourteenth Party Congress (December 1925) Tomsky, the chairman of the Central Trades Union Council, described the difficulties encountered by the production conferences because of the hostility of the heads of enterprises. Molotov reported that fewer than 600 conferences had been held in Moscow and Leningrad, bringing together about 70,000 workers. A resolution on trade union matters adopted by the CC in October 1925 had taken an ambiguous line on this problem, reflecting the strong pressure then being exercised by most of the heads of enterprises and those who supported their views within the Party. While confirming the need to develop "production meetings," this resolution warned against a "management deviation," in the sense of interfering "directly and without competence to do so in the management and administration of enterprises."[28] This document refers several times to the resolution adopted by the Eleventh Party Congress, which was then nearly four years old, and which, as we have seen, did not rule out direct intervention by the trade unions and the workers in the management of enterprises except in "the present state" of Soviet Russia; whereas the situation at the end of 1925 was very different from what it had been then.[29]

    A resolution passed in December 1925 by the Fourteenth Party Congress remained very cautious regarding production meetings, reminding all concerned that the ultimate aim of such meetings was "to give practical instruction to the workers and all the working people in how to run the economy of the country as a whole."[30]

    At the beginning of 1926 a fresh impulse was given to the line, aimed at giving the workers a bigger role in defining the tasks of production. In a report on April 13, (in which he dealt with the work of the CC plenum held at the beginning of the month) Stalin forcefully stressed the need to put a mass line into effect in order to solve the tasks of industrialization. The part of his report devoted to this problem emphasized the need to reduce unproductive expenditure to the minimum. It thus

page 219

went against the ideas of the heads of enterprises, who emphasized above all intensification of labor, raising of norms, reduction of wages, and strengthening of labor discipline imposed from above.

    What Stalin said on this subject was organically linked with the will to develop industry by means of its own resources, these being constituted first and foremost by the workers themselves. In this connection certain passages in his report of April 13, 1926, were of great importance. Thus, after examining some of the principal tasks to be accomplished in order to advance industrialization, Stalin asked: "Can these tasks be accomplished without the direct assistance and support of the working class?" And he replied:

No, they cannot. Advancing our industry, raising its productivity, creating new cadres of builders of industry, . . . establishing a regime of the strictest economy, tightening up the state apparatus, making it operate cheaply and honestly, purging it of the dross and filth which have adhered to it during the period of our work of construction, waging a systematic struggle against stealers and squanderers of state property -- all these are tasks which no party can cope with without the direct and systematic support of the vast masses of the working class. Hence the task is to draw the vast masses of non-Party workers into all our constructive work. Every worker, every honest peasant must assist the Party and the Government in putting into effect a regime of economy, in combating the misappropriation and dissipation of state reserves, in getting rid of thieves and swindlers, no matter what disguise they assume, and in making our state apparatus healthier and cheaper. Inestimable service in this respect could be rendered by production conferences. . . . The production conferences must be revived at all costs. . . . Their programme must be made broader and more comprehensive. The principal questions of the building of industry must be placed before them. Only in that way is it possible to raise the activity of the vast masses of the working class and to make them conscious participants in the building of industry.[31]

    This speech of Stalin's was followed by a reexamination of the problem of the production conferences by the Central Trades Union Council and by the VSNKh (at that time still

page 220

headed by Dzerzhinsky). In a note which he signed on June 22, 1926, only a few days before his death, Dzerzhinsky did not shrink from declaring that the lack of success of the production conferences was due to "our managers who have not hitherto shown active goodwill in this matter."[32] As a result of this note, a joint resolution was adopted by the Central Trades Union Council and the VSNKh, calling for the establishment of production commissions in all the factories, with the task of preparing proposals and agenda for the production conferences.[33]

    In the second half of 1926 and at the beginning of 1927 the struggle between a line directed toward mass participation in management and a line tending to consolidate the dominant position of the heads of enterprises in matters of management, economy, labor discipline, and so on, seems to have become more intense. Nevertheless, neither of these two lines was ever openly counterposed to the other: the conflict proceeded in terms of shifts of emphasis, with the substitution of one word for another having real political significance. Thus, the Fifteenth Party Conference (October 1926) passed two resolutions which again underlined the importance of the production conferences.[34] These documents looked forward to increased activity by production meetings, with extension of their field of competence alike in general questions and questions of detail, so as to achieve a "form of direct participation by the workers in the organisation of production."[35] For this purpose it was provided that "temporary commissions for workers' control in a given enterprise" could be set up, and that their functions be defined by the Central Trades Union Council and the VSNKh.[36]

    The resolution on the country's economic situation condemned the line that had been followed by the economic organs. They were accused of having "distorted the Party's directives," with the result that attempts had been made "to effect economies at the expense of the essential interests of the working class."[37] The resolution demanded that the personnel of the economic organs be decisively reduced in numbers, together with administrative costs, that systems of man-

page 221

agement and decision-making be rationalized, and that a struggle against bureaucracy be launched.

    The Fifteenth Conference dealt with the problem of increasing the productivity of labor by stressing "the immense significance of the production-meetings." The resolution adopted said that "without active participation by the worker masses the fight to strengthen labour discipline cannot fully succeed, just as without broad participation by the worker masses it is not possible to solve successfully any of the tasks or to overcome any of the difficulties that arise on the road of socialist construction."[38]

    The adoption of these resolutions was strongly resisted. Some managers feared a reappearance of "workers' control" in the form it had taken in October 1917, while others complained that the controls they already had to put up with constituted an excessive burden.[39]

    In the two months following the Fifteenth Conference the heads of enterprises and the VSNKh seem to have strengthened their positions. The Seventh Congress of Trade Unions, held in December, dealt only cautiously with the question of production conferences and control commissions. The principal resolution voted by this Congress even stressed that the organizing of commissions "must in no case be interpreted as a direct interference in the functions of administrative or economic management of the enterprise concerned."[40] In practice, the temporary control commissions elected by the production conferences usually consisted of five or seven skilled workers, who dealt with relatively limited questions: analysis of the reasons for a high cost of production, shortcomings in the utilization of labor power, fight against waste.[41]

    Applying the resolutions of the Fifteenth Party Conference, the VSNKh and the Central Trades Union Council jointly decided, on February 2, 1927, to set up temporary control commissions, but subsequent events showed that the commissions thus created did not do very much during 1927. At the Fifteenth Party Congress (December 1927) the negative attitude of the economic leaders and heads of enterprises was mentioned as the reason for this. The plenum of April 1928

page 222

also blamed the trade-union cadres for the poor organization of the production conferences, the infrequency of their meetings, and the lack of interest in them shown by many workers.[42]

    For whatever reason, in April 1928 the production conferences were still not playing the role that the resolutions adopted up to that time had assigned to them.


   (c)  The "criticism" movement of 1928

    The April 1928 session of the CC returned to these same problems. In his report of the session, given on April 13,[43] Stalin dwelt upon the need to develop criticism and self-criticism of a really mass character.[44] What he said in this connection concerned especially the heads of enterprises, engineers, and technicians:

we must see to it that the vigilance of the working class is not damped down, but stimulated, that hundreds of thousands and millions of workers are drawn into the general work of socialist construction, that hundreds of thousands and millions of workers and peasants, and not merely a dozen leaders, keep watch over the progress of our construction work, notice our errors and bring them into the light of day. . . . But to bring this about, we must develop criticism of our shortcomings from below, we must make criticism the affair of the masses. . . . If the workers take advantage of the opportunity to criticise shortcomings in our work frankly and bluntly, to improve and advance our work, what does that mean? It means that the workers are becoming active participants in the work of directing the country, economy, industry. And this cannot but enhance in the workers the feeling that they are the masters of the country, cannot but enhance their activity, their vigilance, their culture. . . . That, incidentally, is the reason why the question of a cultural revolution is so acute with us.[45]

    This passage thus linked together the theme of the need for class criticism coming from the rank and file with the theme of a cultural revolution and active participation by the working people in the work of running the economy and the country.

page 223

    The way in which these themes were expounded by Stalin shows that at the beginning of 1928 the contradiction between the demands of the preceding stage of the NEP (the stage of restoring the economy and of the first steps taken along the path of industrial development) and the demands of the new stage (the stage of accelerated industrialization) had reached objectively a high degree of acuteness. Industry could no longer advance "by its own resources" unless the workers attacked the practices and social relations characteristic of the previous phase. If this attack did not take place, if the workers did not revolt against the existing practices and social relations, and if this revolt was not correctly guided, but dispersed itself over secondary "targets," then the growth in the contradictions that resulted must inevitably obstruct the development of industry by means of its own resources, leading either to a crisis of industrialization or to a type of industrial development very different from that which the Bolshevik Party wished to promote on the morrow of its Fifteenth Congress.

    The year was marked by a serious development of the workers' struggle, but also by the dispersal of this struggle over a variety of targets -- owing to the Bolshevik Party's inability to concentrate it on the main thing, namely, transformation of production relations. What happened in the spring of that year was particularly significant in this connection.

    The beginning of 1928 saw several "affairs" coming to a head, affairs which gravely undermined the authority of the heads of enterprises, engineers, and specialists, and also some local and regional Party cadres. Two of these "affairs" were especially important: those of Shakhty and Smolensk. Stalin alluded to them explicitly in his report of April 13, 1928, mentioned above,[46] and in his speech to the Eighth Komsomol Congress on May 16.[47]

    The first of these affairs gave rise to a trial which was held between the beginning of May and the beginning of July 1928.[43] The accused in this trial were a number of specialists of bourgeois origin who held managerial posts in the coal mines of the Ukraine. They were charged with sabotage and

page 224

counter-revolutionary activity in conspiracy with foreign powers, and were sentenced to severe penalties.

    The second affair was more important politically, for it was provincial Party cadres who were gravely implicated in it. Occurring also at the beginning of 1928, it gave rise to an inquiry by the Party's Central Control Commission, and the conclusions were published in Pravda on 18 May 1928. According to these conclusions, a number of Party officials in Smolensk Region had become sunk in corruption and depravity. The results of the investigation were put before a gathering of 1,100 Party members, 40 percent of whom were production workers. The report of the inquiry and the discussion at this meeting show that, at the request of political leaders in the region, 60 persons had been arrested -- although there were no criminal charges to be brought against them, and there had been cases of suicide on the part of workers whose urgent applications had been met with indifference by the leadership, and so on. As a result of these revelations, about 60 percent of the cadres (at every level) in the Smolensk Region were relieved of their posts, and were replaced mainly by worker militants. However, the punishment meted out to the former cadres was not very severe, and the rank-and-file workers were unhappy about this.[49]

    The Smolensk affair was not the only one involving cadres at a regional level and which presented similar features, but it was mainly in connection with this affair that Stalin expounded important themes which found a wide echo in the working class.

    These themes were set forth principally in the speech to the Eighth Komsomol Congress. In this speech Stalin stressed that the class struggle was still going on, and that, in relation to its class enemies, the working class must develop "its vigilance, its revolutionary spirit, its readiness for action."[50] He returned to the need for "organising mass control from below."[51] What was particularly significant in this speech was that he called for control from below to be developed in relation not only to specialists and engineers of bourgeois origin but also to the Party cadres themselves and the engineers of working-class origin. He denounced the idea that

page 225

only the old bureaucracy constituted a danger. If that were so, he said, everything would be easy. He emphasized that "it is a matter of the new bureaucrats, bureaucrats who sympathise with the Soviet Government, and, finally, Communist bureaucrats."[52]

    Stalin then referred to the Smolensk "affair" and some others, asking how it was that such shameful cases of corruption and moral degradation could have occurred in certain Party organizations. This was the explanation he gave: "The fact that Party monopoly was carried to absurd lengths, that the voice of the rank-and-file was stifled, that inner-Party democracy was abolished and bureaucracy became rife. . . ." And he added: "I think that there is not and cannot be any other way of combating this evil than by organising control from below by the Party masses, by implanting inner-Party democracy."[53]

    Later, Stalin explained that this control must be exercised not only by the masses who had joined the Party but by the working masses as a whole, and by the working class first and foremost:

We have production conferences in the factories. We have temporary control commissions in the trade unions. It is the task of these organisations to rouse the masses, to bring our shortcomings to light and to indicate ways and means of improving our constructive work. . . . Is it not obvious that it is bureaucracy in the trade unions, coupled with bureaucracy in the Party organisations, that is preventing these highly important organisations of the working class from developing?
    Lastly, our economic organisations. Who will deny that our economic bodies suffer from bureaucracy? . . .
    There is only one sole way [of putting an end to bureaucracy in all these organisations] and that is to organise control from below, to organise criticism of the bureaucracy in our institutions, of their shortcomings and their mistakes, by the vast masses of the working class. . . .
    Only by organising twofold pressure -- from above and from below -- and only by shifting the principal stress to criticism from below, can we count on waging a successful struggle against bureaucracy and on rooting it out. . . . The vast masses of the workers who are engaged in building

page 226

our industry are day by day accumulating vast experience in construction. . . . Mass criticism from below, control from below, is needed by us in order that . . . this experience of the vast masses should not be wasted, but be reckoned with and translated into practice.
    From this follows the immediate task of the Party: to wage a ruthless struggle against bureaucracy, to organise mass criticism from below, and to take this criticism into account when adopting practical decisions for eliminating our shortcomings.[54]

    While continuing appeals that had been issued earlier, these declarations in the spring of 1928 signified an important step forward as compared with what had been said previously (in particular at the Fifteenth Party Congress). They revealed a shift of emphasis[55] which was of considerable significance, indicating a new stage in the class struggle and in its effects on the Party line.


   (d)  The struggle of the poor and middle
       management and way of training
       engineers and technicians

    Comparison of these declarations with some others shows that new conclusions were then in process of emerging with regard to the existing social relations, their nature, and the forms of struggle needed in order to transform them -- although the question of transforming social relations was not posed explicitly.

    In his report of April 13, 1928, Stalin questioned the existing regulations concerning managerial functions, in particular Circular No.33 dated March 29, 1926, on "The Organisation of the Management of Industrial Establishments."[56] He said of this circular that "these model regulations. . . . confer practically all the rights on the technical director," and that it had become an obstacle to the management of enterprises by Communist leaders risen from the working class.[57]

    In the same report, Stalin also raised the question of economic leaders who were Party members of working-class origin but who had begun, he said, "to deteriorate and degener-

page 227

ate and come to identify themselves in their way of living with the bourgeois experts," to whom they were becoming mere "appendages."[58]

    Here we see formulations appearing which suggest that within the Party itself there might emerge a new bourgeoisie, taking over from the old one and forming a "Communist bureaucracy." However, these formulations were not developed, and even those quoted were not to be subsequently repeated with the same sharpness. It is clear, nevertheless, that the expressions used reflected the development of acute contradictions in the economic apparatuses and also in those of the Party and the State.

    It will also be noted that in this same report of April 13 Stalin raised the question of the training of "Red experts." He observed that this training was bad, poorly adapted to industry's needs, bookish, divorced from production and practical experience. He said that an expert trained in this way "does not want to soil his hands in a factory." According to him, such experts were often badly received by the workers and were unable to get the upper hand over the bourgeois experts. In order to change this situation, Stalin advocated that the training of young experts be carried out differently, that it involve "continuous contact with production, with factory, mine and so forth."[59 ]

    Here, too, a step forward was being made, as compared with the way with which these same problems had been dealt up to that time: we see taking shape a critique of the bourgeois way of training technicians and engineers and a search for something different.

    When we analyze this passage, and some others, we can deduce that in the spring of 1928 some new and important formulations were emerging. Today, in the light of the experience of China, and, especially of the proletarian cultural revolution, we find ourselves thinking that if these reflections had been deepened and systematized, they might have led to a more profound challenge to the existing organization of industry; to the relations between the heads of enterprises, engineers, and cadres, on the one hand, and the mass of the

page 228

workers, on the other; to the relation between education and production practice; and, finally, to the practice of the class struggle. Actually, this deepening and systematization did not take place in the Soviet Union, owing to the turn taken by the class struggle in the second half of 1928.

    During that year there was a turn in the conditions of the class struggle. The first half of the year saw a rising tide of initiatives and criticisms coming from below and denouncing the authoritarian way in which many persons in leading positions were performing their tasks. Toward the end of 1928, on the contrary, these initiatives ebbed away. Let us look more closely at what happened.


   (e)  The rise of the mass movement

    In the first months of 1928 a growing number of workers began to criticize managers and engineers, blaming them for their attitude, their decisions, and the way they tried to speed up production even going so far as to violate the labor laws and safety regulations.[60] Before 1928 such criticism had not been made openly, for fear of punishment. The call for mass criticism helped to alter this situation.

    Here something needs to be said about the reasons for increased discontent in the working class at the beginning of 1928. To be specially noted are the continued pressure brought to bear to impose higher work norms from above, the serious difficulties affecting the supply of food, and the way in which the managements carried out the transition to three-shift working. This last point calls for some remarks.

    It should be recalled that on October 16, 1927, a Party manifesto was published[61] which provided for a gradual change over from the eight-hour day to the seven-hour day, without any reduction in wages, on condition that productivity per workday was maintained or increased. This decision prepared the way for the change to three-shift working, a measure which the VSNKh had been advocating for some time on the grounds that it would make possible more intensive use of plant, and consequently, more employment.

page 229

    The practical implementation of this measure was to be carried out on the basis of agreements made between the trade unions and the economic organizations. Actually, the heads of enterprises had taken steps already in order to arrange matters in the way that suited them. Thus, despite protests from the trade unions, in most textile mills the workers had been obliged to work two half-shifts a day, each of three and a half hours, which disrupted their lives. We find in the press of the time many protests against the way that shiftwork was being introduced,[62] and against the consequences of nightwork for young persons and pregnant women.[63]

    A new source of discontent among the workers was thus created which made them readier even than before to challenge some of the decisions taken by the heads of enterprises. Faced with this questioning of their authority, many of the latter, and many engineers, refused to accept that the workers over whom they had hitherto exercised power should dare to criticize their decisions and their behavior. They tried to take reprisals, individual or collective, which only aggravated the tension.

    From May 1928 on the heads of enterprises complained increasingly of a "slackening of labour discipline." These complaints arose mainly in heavy industry and the coal mines. The points most often mentioned were: lower productivity and production, increased costs, poor maintenance of equipment, excessive absenteeism.[64 ]

    Between April and June the number of stoppages (some of which might, of course, have been due to technical causes) was greater than during the corresponding period of the previous year, but it is hard to say what the real reasons were for this phenomenon. The managers and engineers may have been responsible, either because they failed to organize the supply of raw materials to the factories, or because they were trying to "prove" that anything that threatened their authority was also a threat to production. Stoppages brought about in that way may have been comparatively numerous. The managers' reports certainly exaggerated the effects upon production of the tension that was developing. Production was still rising

page 230

rapidly, all the same.[65] Moreover, this period saw the advance of a movement of socialist emulation, which was most probably stimulated by the development of mass initiative which accompanied the multiplication of production conferences and the open voicing of grievances and criticism.

    However that may have been, the heads of the economic organs reacted aggressively to the development of the mass movement which called their "authority" in question. Those journals which expressed the views of the managers and the economic organizations developed a veritable antiworker campaign, writing of the "cultural and technical backwardness" of the workers in general and of the "low cultural level" of the workers of peasant origin in particular -- which signified that criticisms or proposals coming from the workers were not worth considering.

    The managers' journal invoked the principle of one-person management, as if this were a principle not to be touched, instead of a measure adopted at a particular moment in order to deal with conditions specific to that moment. It wrote: "Soviet principles of management of enterprises and production are being replaced by the principle of election, and, in practice, by the responsibility of those who elect."[66]

    In the press of the VSNKh and the economic organs many articles appeared accusing the workers not only of indiscipline and absenteeism but also of plundering, larceny, drunkenness at work, and insulting or assaulting the specialists and administrators. Such things certainly did happen. They expressed the exasperation of part of the working class against the resistance offered by the managers to changes in the organization of production proposed by the workers, and also the workers' resentment of increased work norms imposed from above.

    In face of the rising tide of criticism by the working class and the reactions thereto of the managers and the middle cadres of the Party, more and more hesitation was shown as to the line to be followed. Stalin's article "Against Vulgarising the Slogan of Self-Criticism"[67] gives clear expression to this hesitation.

page 231

    The principal aspect of this article was an appeal for mass criticism to continue. Several passages say this, for instance: "With all the more persistence must we rouse the vast masses of the workers and peasants to the task of criticism from below, of control from below, as the principal antidote to bureaucracy."[68]

    Or, again:

Nor can it be denied that, as a result of self-criticism, our business executives are beginning to smarten up, to become more vigilant, to approach questions of economic leadership more seriously, while our Party, Soviet, trade-union and all other personnel are becoming more sensitive and responsive to the requirements of the masses.
    True, it cannot be said that inner-Party democracy and working-class democracy generally are already fully established in the mass organisations of the working class. But there is no reason to doubt that further advances will be made in this field as the campaign unfolds.[69]

    This formulation thus called for criticism from below to continue. Yet the aims of the movement remained ambiguous. On the problems of discipline Stalin had this to say: "Self-criticism is needed not in order to shatter labour discipline but to strengthen it, in order that labour discipline may become conscious discipline, capable of withstanding petty-bourgeois slackness."[70]

    In a way, this formulation replied to the complaints of the managers about "slackening of discipline," but it did not reply completely, for it did not say in so many words that the conscious discipline mentioned implied, above all, new forms of discipline. This lack of precision left a gap affecting the orientation of the mass movement.

    Similarly, where problems of management were concerned, the formulations remained ambiguous, as here: "Self-criticism is needed not in order to relax leadership, but to strengthen it, in order to convert it from leadership on paper and of little authority into vigorous and really authoritative leadership."[71] This formulation does not say whether the forms of leadership had to be changed or not, nor does it say who is to lead, or the

page 232

basis on which the authority of the leadership is to be founded.

    As well as these ambiguities, this document of June 1928 contained a certain number of remarks which were to be seized on by the opponents of the mass movement, remarks which reflect hesitation and fear inspired by the scope that the movement was attaining. One of these remarks warned against certain "destructive" criticisms the aim of which was not to improve the work of construction.[72] The local cadres and managers were not slow to make use of such a remark to condemn as "destructive" any criticism or proposal that they wished to brush aside.

    Another remark entailed more immediate consequences for the future development of the movement, namely:

It must be observed . . . that there is a definite tendency on the part of a number of our organisations to turn self-criticism into a witch-hunt against our business executives. . . . It is a fact that certain local organisations in the Ukraine and Central Russia have started a regular witch-hunt against some of our best business executives. . . . How else are we to understand the decisions of the local organisations to remove these executives from their posts, decisions which have no binding force whatever and which are obviously designed to discredit them?[73]

    This remark shows the wide scope the movement had attained, and also the limits within which it was considered to be acceptable. Since these limits were being transcended, what was ultimately at issue was whether support would continue to be given to it, or whether brakes were to be applied to its development.

    Actually, during part of the second half of 1928 the movement still went forward, and even assumed dimensions that worried the Party leadership more and more. Thus, in November 1928, Kuibyshev, addressing the plenum of the VSNKh, denounced the situation which had been created by saying: "The formula: 'public opinion is against him' has already become typical." He went on to explain that when the head of an enterprise or a trust found himself in this position, "he has no alternative but to depart, to abandon his post."[74]

page 233

    This statement constituted a warning against the continuance of a movement which, while becoming widespread, nevertheless threw up no new forms of organization, discipline, and leadership. For lack of proper guidance, the movement of criticism from below failed to organize itself or to bring about a real transformation of social practices and relations.


   (f)  The ebbing of the mass movement

    Under these conditions, the mass movement began to weaken toward the end of 1928. The accounts we have of it (mostly unfavorable to real change) give the impression that the workers' discontent found dispersed expression in individual acts: attacks by a few workers (usually youngsters, and sometimes Komsomols) on particular engineers, technicians, managers, etc. The situation was, however, one in which these more or less isolated acts were not looked on with disapproval by those workers who knew about them, including some Party members.

    Through failing to rise to a new stage and through ceasing to be supported, the movement ran out of steam. True, at the end of 1928 the Eighth Congress of the Trade Unions voted a resolution providing for extension of the production conferences and temporary control commissions.[75] But these commissions played no great role, and even tended to disappear in 1929. As for the production conferences, while they were held more or less regularly, they performed only routine tasks.

    In 1929, then, it was the struggle to consolidate existing relations that triumphed.

    The speed with which the movement of criticism from below began to ebb may seem surprising. It is perhaps to be explained by the conjunction of a number of factors. First, the movement ceased to be supported by the Party's basic organizations, since emphasis had been laid once more upon the importance of factory discipline, and the basic trade-union organizations hesitated more and more to give their backing to initiatives which no longer enjoyed the Party's approval. Sec-

page 234

ondly, as we shall see, fresh powers were granted to the heads of enterprises, so that they now possessed more effective means to "restore discipline," and were encouraged to make use of them. Finally, the movement, which developed very unevenly, became divided and weakened when it no longer had support from the Bolshevik Party.



   IV.  The struggle to consolidate existing
      relations and for a labor discipline
      imposed from above

    What has been said already about the way with which the problem of fixing work norms was dealt has shown that, along with the struggle to transform existing relations, a struggle was also being waged for the maintenance and consolidation of these relations. From February 1929 on it was this struggle that played the principal role.

    On February 21, 1929, the CC issued an appeal to all Party organizations to concentrate all their efforts on strengthening labor discipline.[76] On March 6, 1929, the Council of People's Commissars increased the disciplinary powers of managers.[77] They were called upon to penalize more strictly all breaches of regulations, and to inflict severe punishment on workers who did not conform to the orders of the management. Respect for factory discipline became for the workers a condition necessary if they were to obtain any social advantages -- which included securing or retaining