society: The impact of dictatorial regimes on the economy and society of the Russian Empire and the USSR Flashcards
what percentage of population was workers
1858, 1913, 1926, 1960
- 6% - 1858
- 18% - 1913
- 18% - 1926
- 49% - 1960
workers housing under the tsars
urbanisation
The pace of urbanisation between 1890 and 1914 was very quick. As industrialisation increased, the demand for new workers increased with it and cities exploded in size. In those years’ major cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, Riga doubled in size. Workers moving to these growing towns and cities needed places to live, but this was largely left to the free market of businesses and individual workers, not state policy. **The state did not pursue a house-building programme to match the pace of industrial change. **
failure to develop social hosuing led to bad living conditions
Worker ‘barracks’ were the norm. These were built by their employers. They lacked private space. Shift systems sometimes meant workers would share beds in rotation. 20-40 per building. Overcrowded. Unsanitary.
Public Health Crisis. Towns and cities became centres for endemic diseases, usually water-borne diseases. By 1914 Russia had 1,000 towns and just 200 of these had piped water and just 28 had a sewerage system. The mixing of waste water and ‘clean’ water was common. A Cholera outbreak caused 100,000 deaths in St. Petersburg alone in 1914.
workers housing under lenin
immediately after the October Revolution, Lenin sought to improve the conditions for the workers whom he claimed to represent.** Large private housing were expropriated and turned into Kommunalka** – communal apartments. The local Soviets were put in charge of these buildings and distributed them based on family size. Typically, two to seven families shared a hallway, kitchen, and bathroom, but **had their own private bedrooms/living space. **
This represents a partial change because workers were now living in the old elites housing, representing some progress. However, communal living remained a norm.
workers housing under stalin
Housing conditions in towns and cities worsened during Stalin’s Five-Year Plans. The focus on industrialisation once again came at the cost of quality of life.
Under the First Five-Year Plan, there was a 50% short-fall in housing. **
Result: *
This meant that many people who had **recently moved to cities were forced to live in their places of work, in barracks**, or in crowded tenements.
In **Magnitogorsk in 1931, around 25% lived in wood/mud huts* they had made (this a carry-over from their peasant way of life in the countryside).
Kommunalka continued BUT, Soviet policy was changed to allocate space rather than rooms. 25% of the population of Moscow lived in a room shared with another family.
workers housing under khrushchev
- **Kommunalka abandoned **
- Hundreds of thousands of 5 storey flat blocks built. A* total of 108 million people moved into new apartments, 1956-65*
- Considerable increase in quality of life.
- Critics have branded them Khrushchyovka [Khrushchev Slums]. While it is true they were built of cheap, prefabricated concrete panels [which some criticise aesthetically] they represented a genuine improvement in living conditions.
Was there more change or continuity in urban living conditions, 1855-1964?
There was a considerable degree of continuity in housing for much of the period. Overcrowding was common under the Tsarist barracks and in the Leninist/Stalinist Kommunalka. Similarly, **communal living in the form of barracks was normal throughout much of the period. **
Yet, it is worth highlighting the communists, particularly Lenin and Khrushchev had a greater positive impact than the other leaders. Khrushchev had the largest impact with his massive social housing schemes.
Lenin also had a noteworthy impact with the introduction of Kommunalka which allowed workers to occupy better homes than they had under the Tsars. The** primary reason the communists had a greater impact was their ideology.** Ideologically, communism was keenly interested in the conditions of ordinary people. Unfairness, poverty, and inequality were issues that Communist ideology strongly criticised. Hence, the Communist leaders were simply far more interested in improving conditions – and creating a state in the interest of the proletariat – than the Tsars were.
what is the new work discipline
Factories introduced very harsh rules to maximise the production efforts of their employees. This involved long hours, shift work, strict rules of work (enforced by a foreman), and harsh punishments for wrongdoing [including fines and flogging]. Workers had very few rights and employment contracts. Employers prioritised profits.
when was the factory inspectorate
1882
impact of the factory inspectorate
There were only about 200 inspectors employed in any given year and they had** over 18,000 factories** to inspect. An impossible task!
Just **50% of factories were inspected in 1900 **
This meant that many factories could get around other laws
when was the 11 hour working day enforced
tsars
1896
impact of 11hour-working day enforced
11-hours days were still incredibly long, this did not change practice too much. Factories liked to keep operations going for 24 hours to maximise production. Shift rotations allowed this to continue.
working conditions befire the new work discipline
Peasants were used to following ‘natures clock’ when working in the fields and rarely had a manager looking over them.
working conditions improved under lenin
**The Workers’ Decrees on 1917 **set minimum wages and a maximum of 8 hour working day and gave workers the control of factories.
Rabkrin, est. 1920 [The Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate] was given the task the Factory Inspectorate had formerly had.
2 major limits to progress under lenin regarding working conditions
Both have the same underlying cause. War Communism reintroduced labour discipline through party managers. Party managers controlled factories and sought to raise the productivity of the workers. They reintroduced fines and punishments for ill-discipline. Further, Rabkrin did little to improve conditions and often sided with the party managers / bureaucrats rather than the workers. The use of fines to punish workers for wrong-doings continued to be the norm.
The underlying theme connecting both of these issues was that** workers interests were subordinate to that of the Party. Despite claims of being a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Lenin really created a dictatorship of the communist party.* Communist party interests – maintaining power, stability, progress – were not necessarily the same as worker’s interests – improved pay, conditions***, etc. Hence the interests of the party were taken more seriously than the interests of the workers.
stalin workers conditions: contrast between image and reality
There was a significant contrast between the way the state promoted working and the nature of it. Propaganda during the Stalinist period celebrated the glory of work. Stakhanovite propaganda gave the impression that meeting one’s targets was doing a great duty to the community. Stakhanovites were celebrated as New Soviet People with superior moral and values to other Russians. They were examples for the people to follow.
Yet,** most workers lives became much worse under the harsh conditions of the Five-Year Plans**. All of the policies were geared towards maximising the production efforts of the workers.
what was the harshet labour decree under the 5yr plans
the 1940 labour decree
features of the 1940 labour decree
- 20 minutes lateness was punishable by 6 months hard labour
- Working week lengthened to 6 days
- Changing jobs without authorisation was a criminal offence. This meant that the ‘free market’ of jobs was effectively over. Individuals had to work where the state directed them to work.
- Missing work could lead to eviction
Stalin saw a reversal of this progress on hours as the Five-Year Plans demanded labour-intensive work to achieve targets. During the First Five-Year Plan [1928-1932] the working day averaged 10-12 hours.
One new aspect was the harsh treatment of workers deemed to be ‘wreckers’ by Stalin. ‘Wreckers’ were those who either:
Caused damage to the state or country, or
Failed to carry out duties – e.g. meeting targets.
who were wreckers
Wreckers were deemed not only to be trouble-makers, but deemed as ideological enemies. If an individual failed to meet their production targets they were not only doing themselves a dis-service, but were letting their comrades down. ‘Wreckers’ were purged and frequently ended up in the Gulag system, while some high-profile figures suffered Show Trials like in the Industrial Party Trial of 1930 where 5 were sentenced to death.
what did khrushchev introduce to replace stalins laws of the 1940’s
the 1956 labour laws
key changes under the 1956 labour laws
khrushchev
- Severe punishments for lateness and absenteeism stopped under Khrushchev.
- A standard seven-hour working day with six hours on Saturday was introduced gradually under Khrushchev. The introduction of a forty-hour working week finally saw an end to 12 hour days in most fields.
- The minimum wage was increased
- Holiday pay introduced
- Changing jobs without state permission was allowed.
**These changes ahead the effect of improving the working conditions of employers. **
Were there more change or continuity in urban working conditions, 1855-1964?
The primary continuity was that the interests of the employers were almost always seen as more important than the interests of the workers. The employers changed – from private individuals to the state – but the treatment of their employees continues. Furthermore, workers were routinely treated very harshly. Both the Stalinist Labour Decrees and the Tsarist New Work Discipline sought to instil military-style discipline in workers by giving harsh punishments and strict targets. The theme of long working hours continued. During Stalin’s time it was 10 hours, whilst during the Tsars time it was 11.
On the other hand, there was remarkable change in certain periods. Once again,** Khrushchev and Lenin probably oversaw the most positive.** Lenin’s change was much more limited in terms of the time-impact. The Worker’s Decrees had the effect of changing things for a matter of months. Yet, Khrushchev’s changes were much greater and long lasting. The Labour Laws of 1956 represented a significant improvement in the quality of working standards. They provided workers with more guaranteed rights than they were previously entitled to. As with housing, this reflects the Communist ideological mission having a practical effect.
food/famine under the Tsars
Food shortages had always been a problem, hence the Zemstva was put in charge of famine relief, 1864, during Alexander II’s reign.
1. Famine of 1891 – approx. 350,000 died. Initially caused by poor weather but Vyshnegradsky’s policies of raising taxes on peasants and exporting grain made it worse. Alexander III reacted too late in banning exports of grain.
2. 1917 saw food shortages. Why? Peasants hoarded grain or fed livestock, army was prioritised, and the transport system failed to supply towns. The ‘revolution stated in the bread queue’. The Russian people hoped that the toppling of the Tsars and the rise of the Communists would bring about the promise of greater food. Lenin promised* ‘bread, peace and land’* in his famous slogan. Yet, this issue of food shortages largely continued.
food and faminie under the communists
1.** Food crisis, 1918. Why? *Peasants unwilling to release grain. Kulaks blamed by the Communists for self-interested hoarding. Requisitioning introduced.
2. Famine of 1921. Why? Mainly caused by requisitioning and drought. *Approx. 5 million died. Stories of cannibalism and bodysnatching. Lenin blamed for famine, like Stalin and Alexander III. Lenin refused to accept aid from American Relief Administration.
3. Famine of 1932-4. Why? Collectivisation and poor harvests due to bad weather. The most disastrous famine. Harsh policies introduced to repress – death penalty for stealing grain, peasants who ate seed were shot, migration banned. Peasant reaction of slaughtering animals did not help. After 1935 harvests improved but production did not reach pre-1914 levels. By the late 1930s consumption of meat and fish had fallen to 30%.
4. Famine of 1947. Why? Collectivisation re-imposed after World War Two.
Food still had to be imported in 1960s….
continuities in food shortages under both tsars and commi
Weather/climate
Gov’t policies – e.g. requisitioning, Collectivisation, export of grain
Monoculture
Mir
rural working conditions under A2
Serfdom. Up until 1861 the Serfs were entirely under the control of the landowners. They were tied to the land they worked and could not legally move. They were required to give labour to the noble for, usually, 3 or 4 days per week. Serfs had no real legal rights and were often subject to harsh punishments. Emancipation of 1861 therefore ‘liberated’ peasants from some of these controls. Legally, they were now free but still required to pay redemption payments. After Emancipation, the Mir was empowered and villages gained some autonomy. The peasant council of elders dictated how the village was organised. They allocated land and tasks. To achieve surplus most peasants worked most days of the week. There was still some time to celebrate Holy Days.
rural working conditions under A3
The state continued to view peasants as ‘indolent [lazy] and intoxicated’ and claimed these forces led to poor productivity. With continued poor harvests, low productivity, and famine, Alexander III intervened. Alexander introduced Land Captains to try and keep order in the countryside and maintain peasant discipline. Land Captains, 1889, involved, 2000 Nobles, being appointed by officials in regional districts. Their role was to discipline peasants for supposed wrong-doing. They could make local legal decisions and punish peasants for crimes. They were known for publicly flogging serfs. Land captain restored a sense of fear amongst the peasantry that had not existed since Emancipation.
rural working conditions under N2
Stolypin’s reforms sought to remove the influence of the **Mir by giving peasants the right to withdraw and establish their own independent farms. Most peasants (90%), however, were unwilling to abide by the proposal and stayed within the mir. Those who left were viewed with great suspicion. Nicholas II was forced into a number of concessions following the Black Earth Revolts around 1903-1907. One concession included the* abolition of Redemption Payments, the other included the abolition of land captains***. Generally, he set about giving the peasant some further autonomies.
rural working conditions under tsras as a whole
On the whole, across the Tsarist period, there continued to be a lack of investment. Peasant methods and tools remained largely unchanged. Peasants were too poor to have modern equipment. Most relied on old wooden ploughs, sickles and scythes. Three strip rotation (where one strip remained fallow each year) was the norm because fertilisers were not used on any large scale.
rural working conditions under lenin
Under Lenin the brutal nature of requisitioning under War Communism (1918-21) meant that peasant lost control over the produce of their work. Grain was taken by the state and redistributed in towns and cities. The** NEP (1921-28) granted some respite to this temporarily. **
rural working conditions under stalin
Collectivisation transformed the countryside by expanding Communist authority to villages. The traditional autonomy of the mir was lost, and now, how much was produced was dictated by central planning and target setting. Peasants work under the communists was far more regulated, and individuals who did not tow the party line were punished. In this way* one could argue that the life of the peasant was not that different in 1964 compared to 1855*. In 1855 they were required to work the land of the nobility, while in 1964 they were required to work the land of the state. In both cases peasants gained little from their hard work. Sheila Fitzpatrick** claims peasants viewed collectivisation as a ‘second serfdom’. **
Collective farms formed ‘brigades’ of peasant workers. These were made up of 50-200 peasants. Each was led by a brigadier. Each morning at 6am, on the sound of a re-purposed church bell, they would meet to receive instructions from their brigadier as to their day’s tasks. These instructions were top-down, and based on the whims of the Party and the Chairman of the farm (who was appointed by the party). Peasants had little autonomy.
Agricultural modernisation, however, did occur. Collectivisation introduced **machine tractor stations **(MTS). These serviced 94% of farms by 1940, helping to mechanise agriculture. MTS’ would rent out tractors to Collective Farms, sharing the equipment in theory helped to make production more efficient.
rural working conditions under Khrushchev
expansion of the Collective farms in the 1950s and 60s represented a continuation in the policies of Stalin. **Peasant remained under the control of party with little autonomy. Mechanisation increased as more tractors were being produced. By the 1960s, the USSR was producing 440,000 tractors per year** (according to official data, probably exaggerated).