M. I. Davydov. Bor'ba za khleb: Prodovol'stvennaia politika Kommunisticheskoi partit i Sovetskogo gosudarstva v grazhdanskoi voiny (1917–1920). [The Struggle for Bread: The Food Policy of the Communist Party and the Soviet State during the Time of the Civil War (1917–1920)]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo “Mysl'.” 1971. Pp. 219 and I. E. Zelenin. Sovkhozy v pervoe desiatiletie Sovetskoi vlasti, 1917–1927 [State Farms in the First Decade of Soviet Power, 1917–1927]. (Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Institut Istorii SSSR.) Moscow: Izdatel'stvo “Nauka.” 1972. Pp. 389, Peter J. Potichnyj. Soviet Agricultural Trade Unions, 1917–70. [Toronto:] University of Toronto Press. 1972. Pp. xix, 258. $12.50 and Arthur E. Adams and Jan S. Adams. Men versus Systems: Agriculture in the USSR, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. New York: Free Press. 1971. Pp. viii, 327. $12.50

2020 ◽  
pp. 529-539
Author(s):  
Elena V. Barysheva ◽  

The article, based on the materials of the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History and the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History, explores the history of financing Soviet state holidays, beginning with the first anniversaries of the October Revolution. The Bolsheviks, realizing the importance of public holidays as an effective tool for legitimizing Soviet power and promoting new spiritual values, allocated significant amounts for their organization even during the economically difficult period of the Civil War. In the early years of the Soviet power, the decoration of cities and demonstrations was rather ascetic, and the money allocated for the holidays was to be used to maintain the authority among the Red Army soldiers. Later, the decoration of cities for the festivities on November 7 and May 1 became more varied. Preparation began in advance, decoration of cities and columns of workers was paid for by the city and district party organizations and by the trade unions. In 1925, among the anniversaries that were planned on a grand scale, was the 20th anniversary of the 1905 Revolution. The article shows how the issue of its financing was resolved. Subsequently, the economic support of festive events, primarily on November 7 and May 1, was assigned to the enterprises. At the same time, the question of expediency of such significant expenses on decorating cities, holiday stands, and columns of workers has been repeatedly raised not only by the holiday organizers, but also by the demonstrations participants. They said that some institutions and senior executives got carried away by enthusiasm for anniversaries, ceremonies, and banquets. The Decree of the Politburo of the Central Committee “On Anniversaries” (1928) peremptorily prohibited organization of anniversaries and celebrations without special permission. In 1938, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On Prevention of Spending Unnecessary Funds in Celebrating May 1, 1938” finally determined the procedure and sources of financing of the Soviet state holidays. This Decision became the basis for all subsequent decisions on financing holiday events.


Author(s):  
Igor' K. Bogomolov

The collective monograph makes a new attempt to rethink the Russian revolution as a ‘historical divide’ between eras in Russian and world history. The authors come to the conclusion that the revolutionary transformation of Russia went far beyond the borders of 1917, capturing not only the Russian Civil War, but also the first decade of Soviet power. The most important and valuable observations relate to the hidden and still underestimated socio-cultural influence of prerevolutionary Russia on the seemingly completely special ‘Soviet world’.


2019 ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
V.V. Sukhonos

The article is devoted to the political and legal problems of the organization of local authorities. At the same time, the main attention is paid to the Soviet model of local government in the period of its first reform, which falls on the day of the so-called “New Economic Policy”, when the liberalization processes started, called the “Leninist line for the development of socialist democracy”. However, the expansion of this democracy was greatly complicated by the fact that the Soviet state apparatus did not have its own bureaucracy, and therefore, for the most part, relied on the bureaucracy of the old, bureaucracy, raised on the bureaucratic traditions of the royal apparatus. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that many of the workers of the party and Soviet bodies, especially the grassroots, were hardly deprived of previous methods of state administration, which usually had military-administrative character. The transition to a new economic policy (NEP), a certain liberalization of the Soviet system could not but cause a revival in the work of the party, trade unions, and the Soviets. But if the restructuring of the party and trade unions was implemented within a rather short time, then in relation to the Soviets, it was a bit delayed. The newly formed Soviet state apparatus proved to be unprepared for various kinds of social experiments. Among other things, this was due to the inadequate level of farming in the first years of the NEP, the general deterioration of the civil war, the still hard financial situation of the people and the use of all these circumstances by the opponents of the Bolsheviks in the countryside. The most effective means of improving the Soviet apparatus and eliminating bureaucratic “tricks” was the regular campaign in the form of wide involvement in the management of the state of workers and peoples. Particularly relevant was the issue of improving the forms of party leadership by the activities of the Soviet state and economic apparatus. It was necessary to find the right forms of relations between the party and Soviet bodies, to eliminate the practice of substituting Soviets by party bodies not removed from the civil war since the times of civil war. This kind of branching should have provided a more systematic discussion and solution of economic issues by the Soviet authorities while increasing the responsibility of each Soviet worker and the case he was entrusted with. On the other hand, this provided the opportunity for party bodies to focus on the overall management of the work of all state bodies, paying particular attention to the education and organization of working classes. However, despite a certain liberalization of the Soviet system, the model of the organization of local government in the USSR in the period of the New Economic Policy remained ineffective, both as a result of its virtually “curious” character and absolute domination of the members of the Bolshevik Party in the Soviets. Keywords: Local Government; a system of Councils; local Councils; Councils of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies; Soviet local government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document