The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Sociocultural contradictions of trade during modernization of the Russian system



16. For example, using this basis, Brendvol tried to explain evolution of various authoritarian regimes in the Republics of Kalmykia and Buryatia and specified that different levels of ethnic polarization define different ways of formation of political regimes. See: Brandvoll J. Only Peace and Harmony? An Investigation of Inter-Ethnic Realities and their Impact on Regime Development in Buryatia and Kalmykia//Paper delivered to the 7-th Annual World Convention of the Association for the Studies of the Nationalities. New York, 2002.

17. BrubakerR. Reframing Nationalism. Cambridge, 1996.
18. Roeder P. Soviet Federalism and Ethnic Mobilization//World Politics. 1991. No. 2. P. 196-232.
19. See: LipsetS.M. Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy//American Political Science Review. 1959. No. 1. P. 69-105.
20. Inkeles A., Smith D. Becoming Modern: Individual Change in Six Developing Cou-tries. Cambridge, 1974.
21. See for example: Aiken M., Mott P., eds. The Structure of Community Power. New York, 1970.
22. Bollen K., Jackman H. Economic and Noneconomic Determinants of Political Democracy in the 1960s. Research in Political Sociology. 1985.
23. See: Village of Hantigton. Collision of civilizations. M, 2003.
24. Bova R. Democracy and Liberty: The Cultural Connection//Journal of Democracy. 1997. No. 1. P. 112-126.
25. These cases are in detail considered in: Lapidus G., Walker E. Nationalism, Regionalism, Federalism: Center-Perphery Relations in Post-Communist Russia//The Hew Russia: Troubled Transformation/G. Lapidus, ed. Boulder, 1994.
26. Reddaway P., Glinski D. The Tragedy of Russia&s Reforms: Market Bolshevism Against Democracy. Washington, 2001.
27. Reddaway P., Orrtung R., eds. The Dynamics of Russian Power: The Reform of Federal-Regional Relations Under Putin. Vol. 1. Nov. 2003. Vol. 2. Spring 2004.

Stavropol state university On June 29, 2005

© 2005 N.I. Sidorkin

SOCIOCULTURAL CONTRADICTIONS of TRADE during MODERNIZATION of the RUSSIAN SYSTEM

Revolution of 1917 in Russia, along with radical changes in a social and economic and political system of the country, caused also deep transformation of the value sphere of society. In process of rooting of new social and economic and political institutes in society also its economic culture changed. As the domestic researcher of sociocultural bases of economy and business N.N. Zarubina notes, the initial economic mentality of different classes and layers of pre-revolutionary Russian society underwent cruel violent withdrawal pains for the sake of formation of the new, ideologically set model. At the same time new socialist economic

culture kept genetic relationship from pre-revolutionary [1, page 142143]. On the one hand, the Soviet social and economic system was initially formed as anti-market that in a complex with physical destruction of a considerable part of pre-revolutionary economic elite including merchants, could not but affect economic culture, having caused a radical gap with the enterprise, commercial culture, business ethics of the Russian pre-revolutionary society. On the other hand, as we know, nationalization and destruction of a private property were the main directions of economic transformations that caused business elimination including legal private trade activity. Here Bolsheviks, no doubt, leaned on anti-proprietary trends which always existed in the Russian cultural tradition. As it was already mentioned above, the traditional Russian economic mentality, in principle, does not know the concept "honest profit" and is inclined to negatively estimate any ways of individualistic enrichment. Of course, during the Soviet period this condemnation of individualistic aspiration to prosperity could not but amplify.

Anti-market installation of poor layers of the Russian society was strengthened by policy of Bolsheviks in the very first years after their coming to power that found reflection in denial at the highest ideological level of the labor, creative nature of a private initiative. The private property was proclaimed the embodiment of the social and moral evil, a source of operation, dissociation and hostility of people, the social conflicts and antagonisms [1, page 143].

These ideological postulates found reflection in the centralized social and economic system created in the country rigid called "military communism" within which the state concentrated almost all human, financial and material resources in the hands, forcing them to work at the principles of military submission [2]. The considered policy which received the name of "the krasnogvardeysky attack to the capital" actually did away with the traditions of large and medium-sized business existing at that time including in trade. Establishment of a direct produktoobmen between the city and the village which leaned on administrative and power resources of the power was one of the directions of policy of the new power in the period of "military communism". Accumulation of food in public foundations for ensuring needs of army and the workers occupied at the defense enterprises was the priority purpose of this policy. It led to the fact that the small-scale country economy became constant to be exposed to violent requisitions - surplus-appropriation systems, and trade was replaced with compulsory depriving of a product and its planned distribution. Along with introduction of a surplus-appropriation system in the country, private trade was also forbidden by bread and other products. All

food and manufactured goods of daily demand were distributed by public institutions strictly centrally - by cards. In spite of the fact that the policy of "military communism" was caused by objective conditions of wartime, many leaders of the country, ideologists of the Bolshevist mode perceived it not only as forced, temporary, but also as quite natural system upon transition to the classless society free from the market relations. Many really believed in this period that the socialist economy can and has to be natural, impecunious that the centralized distribution of all resources and finished goods will be obligatory to be present at it. Indirectly it is confirmed by the fact that many of emergency measures were entered by the new power in 1920 when civil war and foreign intervention already came to an end.

Similar views on a control system of economy were promoted by deep conviction of Bolshevist leaders that after revolution in Russia there have to be revolutionary changes and in the countries of the West, new society will be constructed together with the rich countries and with their participation. However the history of the European countries went on other way, revolution in Germany, Austria, Hungary were suppressed, and hopes for "the world revolutionary fire" began to decrease.

To be fair it is also necessary to note that the system of "military communism", despite acceptance of a number of emergency measures, did not become absolutely dominating: completely she did not manage to suppress the free market and private trade activity. According to some researchers, speculators-meshochniki in days of "military communism" delivered to the cities as much bread how many gave all preparations on a surplus-appropriation system, only its price was several times higher. Spontaneous trade was carried out through the whole country, residents of villages and cities exchanged food for manufactured goods and vice versa. In the largest Moscow market - Sukharevke - it was possible to buy or exchange practically any necessary goods: from a pin to a cow. Furniture, diamonds, bread, vegetables - all this was on sale in the "black" market. Here it was possible to exchange the Soviet money for currency though officially it was strictly forbidden [2, page 213-214].

Thus, private trade activity in days of "military communism" continued to exist, despite attempts of the Soviet government to monopolize production and distribution. Besides the new power fell into an awkward position: the strict ban of private trade could doom urban population to starvation as the state distribution could not provide it with food in full. In this situation it is possible to consider the announcement of the country leaders of transition to the new economic policy

as formal recognition of the fact of existence of private trade which managed to survive contrary to decrees and repressions of the authorities.

It is known that the new economic policy (New Economic Policy) in the Soviet Russia was brought to life by economic accident in the country, mass anti-government protests and hunger. Essence of the New Economic Policy was decentralization of the economic sphere of society: the largest, technically well equipped enterprises united in the trusts given the rights of planning, distribution of means, carrying out trade operations. The state began to lease the small enterprises to individuals, allowed them to make realization of objects of the private industry. As a result with transition to the New Economic Policy the impulse was given to private-capitalist business. Despite this, state regulation remained in rather large volume in the form of supervision, control, etc. Development of trade was one of elements of the state capitalism in days of the New Economic Policy. Originally, in March, 1921, it was supposed for the sake of original to carry out "bows of the city and village" broad barter within local economic circulation. It was for this purpose provided to oblige the state enterprises to hand over products in special goods exchange fund of the republic. But unexpectedly for heads of the country the local barter was close for development of economy and in October, 1921 turned into free trade with all its necessary elements. During this period V.I. Lenin called trade in the main link in economic policy which it is necessary to grasp in every way to build the base of socialism. To the sphere of trade in days of the New Economic Policy the private capital according to the got permission from public institutions to production of trade operations was allowed. Presence of the private capital at retail trade where its specific weight in a total turnover reached 83% was especially noticeable. In wholesale trade the main positions were taken by the state: the state trade organizations possessed about 77% of goods turnover, cooperation-8, to the private capital - 15%. At the same time the private capital was not allowed at all to the sphere of foreign trade which was carried out only on the basis of the state monopoly (the international trade agreements were concluded only with bodies of Narkomvneshtorg) [2, page 223].

In general the new economic policy promoted revival of private trade activity that allowed to saturate the market with goods of mass demand. Within the present research we are interested not so much trade forms how many the status of dealers and also the population relation to private trade activity. The status of private dealers in days of the New Economic Policy was in many respects caused by temporality of this policy: it initially was considered as a temporary measure, tactical retreat, but not the policy calculated for long term. As fairly marks out N.N. Zarubin, aspiration of Bolsheviks ispolzo-

to vat advantages of market economy for socialist construction, political dictatorship, ideological and cultural repressions against "private traders" generated feelings of unreality and fragility of economic freedom. Very interesting remark was about it made by the Russian philosopher who was these years in emigration to P. Struva who in 1923 wrote that against the background of real unfreedom of the individual trade appears not the special social and economic sphere, and only legalization of primitive exchange [1, page 144].

The economic culture of the Soviet society in days of the New Economic Policy bore the impress of this unreality and fragility. Among businessmen during this period the aspiration to receiving fast profit and its transfer to unthrifty expenses dominated. Among dealers-nepmanov the cult of consumerism, household comfort, fashion, entertainments widely extended; the peculiar subculture embodied for descendants in Ellochki Lyudoyedki's image began to be formed. It is interesting to note that the figure of a nepman was postponed in mass consciousness of the Russian population mainly in a negative look.

Stories and also poems and the play "Bug" by V.V. Mayakovsky narrating about bourgeois regeneration of the communist Prisypkin can serve as classical samples of the similar comic image of nepman well-known to the domestic reader of the work of I. Ilf and E. Petrov. The play shows insolvency of the idea of individual enrichment: the aspiration of the main character to ensure "the house - a full bowl" comes to an end with the grandiose fire during "the bourgeois wedding" of pererozhdenets. In the novel by L. Panteleev "the Republic of SKID" younger shkidovets is exposed to brutal beating the peer Slastenov tyrannizing them who decided to be engaged "among the" in commerce and usury. Character this also unambiguously satirical and negative. In a satirical key is considered enterprise installations and in early works by M. Sholokhov. In particular, the attempt of companion Tyutikov to check the ideological durability of the fellow traveler Komsomol member and for this purpose declared the decision "to be engaged in a torgovlishka" (the first published story by M.A. Sholokhov "Test") comes to an end with beating. In general the Soviet literature of the 20th shows even more negative attitude to private dealers, than it was in the Russian pre-revolutionary literature representing merchants. Ostap Bender was the only popular literary character with an enterprise vein who caused in the reader though some sympathy.

In our opinion, this relation to a nepman is explained first of all by the fact that initial accumulation of the capitals among new businessmen was result active delinquent the practician: the history of bourgeois accumulation in the USSR during its first period as Yu. Larin notes, is mainly the history of bourgeois theft in time -

ny types and forms. And already then "bourgeois accumulation of usual type" begins [3, page 348]. Anyway, concepts "nepman" and "zhulik" (i.e. tortfeasor) steel for many Soviet people synonyms. At the same time criminalization of a business initiative, strengthening among private dealers of delinquent behavior were in many respects caused by instability of economic and social situation of business owners in days of the New Economic Policy.

the Course towards the forced industrialization taken by Bolshevik party in the late twenties of the 20th century was followed by gradual folding of the New Economic Policy. To the place of the outlined partial decentralization of the national economy the dictatorship of the center, strict administrative and state control over economic life came again. Actually it meant reproduction in new conditions of traditional Russian cultural tradition of trade activity which was supported with elimination of the institutional bases of private business in trade, replacement with their its state-monopoly forms. There was almost full replacement of the private capital from various sectors of economy: so, if in 1928 the share of private enterprises in retail trade made 24%, then in 1933 it was brought to zero. Trying to keep the prices in wholesale and retail trade at the stable level, the state was forced to introduce since 1928 a rationing system of distribution. Originally cards were entered into some, and then and in all cities of the country, at first - on bread, then - on the main food products and further - on manufactured goods of broad consumption. Actually it meant that "islands" of private trade activity were succeeded by exclusive domination of the state trade.

In other words, since 1929 in economy the management system of management which returned the country to policy of "military communism", however, already in new conditions is approved. Directive planned distribution of resources and products finally forced out the market relations. By the end of the first five-years period (1932) the overcentralized economy which with insignificant modifications existed in the USSR until the end of the 1980th was completely created

As for trade, it within the Soviet tradition of trade activity was almost completely monopolized. For the Soviet trade four main types of monopolism were characteristic: state, territorial, administrative and monopolism on deficiency. The state monopolism was shown in almost 100% monopoly in the field of selling of goods by the state trade organizations and "nationalized" consumer cooperation. So, by the time of the beginning in the country of market transformations in 1990 they captured nearly 96% of trade enterprises, 90% of goods turnover and 93% of the commodity areas [4, page 11]. Territorial monopolism

consisted in clear split of spheres and territories of activity between the state trade and consumer cooperation (city, the village) and also various state systems: Ministries of Trade of the republics, republican Ministries of Internal Affairs, departments of working and food supply of the industrial ministries. The territorial monopoly reached the maximum expression in rural areas. So, in the Central region the consumer cooperation acted as the monopolist. In northeast regions of the European part of Russia and Siberia a monopolist was the Ministry of Internal Affairs trading system of RSFSR through which in certain settlements about 95% of goods turnover were implemented [4, page 11]. Administrative monopolism was characterized by rigid centralization of management and distribution of market funds for the trading organizations. At the same time small trade enterprises were deprived of the right of the legal entity, the settlement account and independent supply with goods and were provided through the so-called auction. Existed as well the fourth type of monopoly - monopolism on scarce commodities which were distributed strictly centrally. Access of trade organizations to them depended on proximity to higher administrative structures by which the success of activity of trade enterprises often was defined. From here, D. Rubvalter notes, such characteristic of the Soviet tradition of trade activity as its merging, first, with bureaucratic structures resulted that formed corruption and criminal environment, and secondly, with shadow economy that was reflected subsequently in the course of market reforms and legitimization in Post-Soviet Russia of private business in the trade sphere [4, page 12]. The similar nature of functioning of an economic system in general and trade in particular could not but have the corresponding impact and on the system of values, installations in relation to the economic sphere, i.e. on the economic culture of society. Considering essence of economic culture of Russia of socialism era, modern researchers, as a rule, mark out two of its main lines: 1) command and administrative character and 2) anti-market orientation. The command and administrative nature of economic culture of the Soviet society was defined by social and economic transformations of socialist revolution. In an extraordinary situation of civil war and economic ruin the methods of implementation of the power could be only authoritative, and at times and cruel. This long-term situation defined the choice of command management style which was extended to economic activity of the civilian population, in particular trade. Here example of this style: "To announce all owners of bread having surplus and who are not taking out them on ssypny points... enemies of the people to betray to revolutionary court and to subject from now on to imprisonment not lower than 10 years, confiscations of all property and to exile forever from community..." [5, page 81].

Not accidentally such words as "surplus-appropriation system", "trudarmiya", "trudpovin-nost", "labor mobilization", "universal coverage", "cleaning", "lishenets", "fight against a melkoburzhuaznost" and other concepts which reflected a situation of that time entered a mass lexicon in the first years of the Soviet power. The command and administrative nature of economic culture assumed elimination of all ways, except state. The second component of cultural tradition in the economic sphere - anti-market orientation also is connected with this line. Commodity-money levers in initial model of socialism were absent. The same values and social norms which were the cornerstone of the dominating ideology which was taking root into mass consciousness were very far from market. "Traditions of capitalism" were mentioned only in a context of exposing terminology: "parasites", "barich", "swindlers", "misters intellectuals who kept capitalist manners", etc. [5, page 83].

So, in the period of the end of the 20th - the beginning of the 30th of the XX century there is a formation of socialist economic culture within which there is a special tradition of trade activity. Relying on works as N.N. Zarubina, it is possible to mark out several main lines of economic culture of an era of socialism [1, page 145-148].

1. A primacy of ideological and political values and the purposes over directly economic. The fact is that during the Soviet era the traditional motivation of economic culture submitted to ideology of construction of socialism, and later - communism. Labor culture was based mainly on awareness of need of work for realization of the ideological purposes, but not moral, religious, practical, prestigious and other values. The value of specific forms of economic activity was also defined by their ideological importance. It is known that the Soviet political regime was officially declared as "dictatorship of the proletariat", i.e. the working class and the labor peasantry were considered by the dominating ideology as the main social support of the mode. And from these layers the Soviet party and economic elite was mainly recruited. In general, in terms of ideology of class fight, production work in the industry and agriculture and also work of economic heads who joined in the imperious party nomenclature had value first of all. Trade was not included into the list of the prestigious directions of economic activity. The official ideology "stood" her as the peculiar remnant of capitalism which is subject to gradual eradication in process of transition to communism. In practice it developed into restriction of the commodity-money relations, eradication of all forms of business.

Most brightly this compromise was shown in the village. Here gradually along with the collective-farm form of housekeeping including elements of joint property of workers the state farms founded were entered

on state ownership. This form of ownership was declared as more progressive, than collective-farm and cooperative. The famous domestic economist G.S. Lisichkin wrote about it: "Such categories as money, the price, trade, the credit, supply and demand, of economy of state farms have no significant effect though externally, formally all this is kept... The state farm buys nothing and does not sell. In state farms it is not accepted to say: "sold grain, meat"; "handed over" - here a word which reflects the nature of alienation of state-farm products more precisely. Even the prices are called not "selling" or "purchasing" here, but "delivery" [6, page 27-28]. Is much later other Russian economist and the sociologist R.V. Ryvkina emphasized: just because collective farms as type of economy could use the commodity-money relations, i.e. trade in the products made by them, "pressed down" them as "lowest" (in comparison with state, state-farm) a form, considering the potential evil [5, page 97].

2. Suppression of an economic initiative of the worker. Centralization of economy, domination of the planned beginnings, eradication of the commodity-money relations - all this could not but suppress a so-called economic initiative of certain workers. "Economic functions with necessary freedom of economic goal-setting and individual responsibility were alienated from the worker, turned into a prerogative of administration and state" [1, page 146]. Actually it meant a primacy of the state delivery and distributing economy over individual economic activity.

Consequences of fight of the Soviet state against the commodity-money relations were shown for the economic culture of society of an era of socialism in rooting in mass consciousness of the corresponding installations. First, this policy killed remnants of "feeling of the owner" or the owner, i.e. a free subject of economic activity. Secondly, it suppressed interest in earnings and expansion of consumption, developed leveling psychology. In mass consciousness of the Soviet population orientation to personal consumption, accumulation even if also especially consumer, in general excessive care of material prosperity were considered kind of as shameful. The same can be told also about a reward for work: the labor of love (this installation directly contradicts the purposes and motives of private trade activity which by definition is directed to generation of profit by purchase and sale of goods), arrangement of life was considered as worthy (norm were rather modest if not to tell ascetic, living conditions). Images of petty bourgeoises purchasers, grabbers, the individualists seeking "not to give to society, and to take", were a constant object of criticism at the different levels: from performances of party ideologists and the central press to satirists and humorists.

3. Replacement of the individual owner worker, replacement with his labor collective. It is considered to be that the Soviet practice collective -

the leg of managing relied on the traditions of collective life forms which were primordially existing in Russia: country communities, artels, associations, etc. It is possible to tell that the Soviet era was time of hypertrophied collectivism: if pre-revolutionary forms allowed to combine to some extent collective and personal interests, then became the norm of socialist collectivism refusal of personal interests in favor of public, full submission of the personality to collective.

As V. Stepin, the cathedral lines of communal life characteristic of mass consciousness of the population of pre-revolutionary Russia notes, during the Soviet era were recreated in activity of work collectives. And these "represented collectives not only professional associations of people, but also served as special forms of communication and daily human communication: people celebrated holidays, birthdays both in family, and in work collective, traditions of joint rest were born, there was a mutual aid. In other words, real non-productive life of the Soviet people did not become isolated in a family framework and in many respects intertwined with production work" [7, page 77]. Thus, working and free time of the average Soviet person became isolated on collective activity that did not leave it time and a scope for an individual initiative.

4. Illegal nature of individual business activity. Within socialist economy not only there was no place left for a personal enterprise initiative, but the similar initiative, besides, also was pursued under the law. Therefore those manifestations of an individual entrepreneurship which continued to exist and develop accepted criminal character. The people who were engaged in trade activity illegally or semi-legally were condemned by official public opinion. The population awarded them with contemptuous epithets: "speculator", "black marketeer", "meshochnik", etc. Underground productions belonged to criminal type of activity.

As a result those market "enclaves" which existed in structure to a limit of the monopolized Soviet economy were mainly with illegal status, concentrating within "shadow" economy. The other dealers occupied in legitimate "national economy" were during this period on position of public servants, becoming a part of the nomenclature. It is not accidental that many of the Soviet directors, like other officials from the party and economic device, were in days of "stagnation" to a limit corrupted, entering quite often close connection with criminal structures [8].

It is known that the shadow economy in the last decades of existence of the USSR blossomed in "magnificent color" on a field of total nationalization of economic structures and dexterous manipulation of deficiency. Strengthening of general deficiency against the background of absolutely improbable surplus of different types of raw materials and materials was especially absurd. And

as heads of the enterprises could not dispose independently of unnecessary resources (to sell or exchange them), for them it was done by figureheads who performed market functions, helping them, but with an ugly form, to maintain capacity of the Soviet economy, to satisfy her requirements. As a result shadow business, being spliced with representatives of the party and state device in the center and on places, controlled turns of billion means, not taxable.

The shadow economy non-uniform on structure, all was anyway connected with trade activity. By estimates of experts, to the middle of the 1980th about 15 million people were engaged in this sphere of economy [2, page 333]. With such economy the Soviet Union approached at the beginning of the 90th of the XX century a peculiar boundary behind which the era of market transformations began. The radical market reforms undertaken during this period could not but affect the sphere of private trade activity, having defined a vector of transformation of its sociocultural status and having altered cultural tradition of its functioning.

Literature and notes

1. N.N. mark. Sociocultural bases of economy and business. M, 1998.
2. For the first time the term "military communism" is mentioned only in the spring of 1921, i.e. already on the eve of introduction of the new economic policy. At this time soviet leadership, seeking to justify sharp transition to a new course, backdating tried to confer responsibility for all events in the country on extraordinary circumstances, calling policy of "military communism" a temporary measure. At the same time it is obvious that in spite of the fact that this policy solved the urgent problems which rose before the new power in the conditions of civil war, it was not "temporary measure", and utopian attempt in the shortest possible time to pass to original communism. In other words, the policy of "military communism" was result not only military circumstances, but also a certain ideology which representatives sought to transform the country on absolutely other principles. See: T.M. Timoshina. Economic history of Russia. M, 2002. Page 206.
3. Yu. Larin. The private capital in the USSR//the Anthology of economic classics. M, 1992. T. 2.
4. D. Rubvalter. Trade: results of market transformations//Power. 2001. No. 5.
5. RyvkinaR.B. Economic sociology of transitional Russia. M, 1998.
6. G.S. Lisichkin. A thorny road to abundance. M, 1984.
7. V. Stepin. Culture and formation of the civilized market in Russia//Vopr. economies. 1995. No. 7.
8. Is known the fact that in the years of so-called Andropov "cleaning" directors of a number of large shops, in particular in Moscow were condemned for illegal activity.

Rostov state pedagogical university On June 29, 2005

Marilyn Coral
Other scientific works: