Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T22:24:29.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovation in the USSR: The Case of Synthetic Rubber

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

R. A. Lewis
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On a midwinter day in Moscow at the very end of 1927, a package containing two kilograms of a substance, similar in color to “lime-flower honey,”1 which had been christened “Diolefin” by its makers was deposited with the scientific and technical council for the chemical industry of VSNKh. Just over four and a half years later, on a summer day in 1932 in laroslavl’ five hundred kilograms of this same material were removed from an autoclave in a newly built factory. These two events are seen as marking the beginning and end of the development and innovation of synthetic rubber, one of the success stories of the First Five- Year Plan; for the laroslavl’ plant, SK-1 (Sinteticheskii Kanchuk-l), with a design capacity of ten thousand metric tons, was the first large-scale plant to be built anywhere in the world.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 1979 , pp. 48 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1979

References

1. It was thus described by V. A. Ostroumova-Lebedeva, the artist wife of S. V. Lebedev ( Tikhomirov, V. V., Oshibka Edisona [Moscow, 1973], p. 38).Google Scholar

2. For an extreme view of Soviet dependence on Western technology, see Sutton, A. C., Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (Stanford, 1971)Google Scholar; he considers synthetic rubber to be one of only two major items which could be called the result of Soviet technology (ibid., p. vii).

3. For a fuller discussion of innovation in these years, see R. A. Lewis, “Industrial research and development in the USSR 1924-1935” (Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 1975), pp. 264-99.

4. On Lebedev's research work, see Piotrovskii, K. B., Akademik S. V. Lebedev osnovopoloshnik promyshlennogo sintesa kauchuka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950), pp. 10–22 Google Scholar; and Iakubchik, A. I., “Sergei Vasil'evich Lebedev,” in Sergei Vasil'evich Lebedev: Zhizn’ i trudy (Leningrad, 1938), p. 6–12.Google Scholar

5. In fact, the idea of holding such a competition was not completely new. During the First World War, the Treugol'nik rubber factory had set up a similar competition offering a prize of one hundred thousand rubles (see Maksimenko, A. M. and Musabekov, Iu. S., Boris Vasil'evich Bysov 1880-1934 [Moscow, 1972], p. 59).Google Scholar

6. Krasnikov, S. V., S. M. Kirov v Leningrade (Leningrad, 1966), p. 98–100.Google Scholar

7. Tikhomirov, Oshibka Edisona, pp. 39-40.

8. Ibid., pp. 41-43; Sergienko, S. P., Akademik Sergei Vasil'evich Lebedev (Zhizn’ i nauchnaia deiatel'nosf) (Moscow, 1959), p. 86–91.Google Scholar

9. Lel'chuk, V. S., Sosdanie khimicheskoi promyshlennosti SSSR: Is istorii sotsialisticheskoi industrializatsii (Moscow, 1964), p. 290.Google Scholar

10. The decree was published in Pravda, December 31, 1929; self-sufficiency through the cultivation of rubber-bearing plants was also the view of the rubber industry (see Lel'chuk, Sosdanie khimicheskoi promyshlennosti SSSR, p. 293).

11. Sergienko, S. P., Sinteticheskii kauchuk (Istoricheskii ocherk) (Moscow, 1940), p. 183 Google Scholar; A. I. Iakubchik, “Raboty S. V. Lebedeva v oblasti polimerizatsii nepredel'nykh uglevodorodov,” in 6”. V. Lebedev, p. 16; Tikhomirov, Oshibka Edisona, pp. 47-50.

12. Lur'e, M. A., “Istoricheskaia spravka,” Sinteticheskii kauchuk, 1, no. 1 (1932): 45 Google Scholar (hereafter this journal will be cited as SK).

13. G. B. Pekov, “Vospominaniia o stroitel'stve i rabote opytnogo zavoda lit. B,” in S. V. Lebedev, pp. 58-59.

14. Tikhomirov, Oshibka Edisona, p. 55.

15. Kuibyshev, V. V., Izbrannye proisvedeniia (Moscow, 1958), p. 205–6.Google Scholar

16. Lur'e, “Istoricheskaia spravka,” p. 47.

17. Ibid.

18. E., Zaleski, Planning for Economic Growth in the Soviet Union 1918-1932 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1971), pp. 158–59.Google Scholar

19. Consumption in 1929/30 was 15, 740 metric tons, and an article published toward the end of 1930 gave a 1931 plan figure of 26, 800 metric tons ( Nikiforov, M, “Rezinovaia promyshlennost' SSSR k XIV godovshchine Oktiabria,” Zhurnal rezinovoi promyshlcnnosti, 6, no. 11-12 [1931]: 186 Google Scholar [hereafter this journal will be cited as ZRP]). This figure was linked to an upward revision of 30 percent in the output plan for the industry in mid-1931 (see E. G., Belyi, “Promyshlenno-finansovyi plan Rezinoob” edineniia na 1931 g.,” ZRP, 5, no. 2-3 [1931]: 3 Google Scholar, and Belyi in ZRP, 8, no. 2 [1932]: 83). A sign of the growing importance attached to the rubber industry was to be its transfer from category B to category A industry in March 1931 (see Nikiforov, “Rezinovaia promyshlennost’ SSSR,” p. 184).

20. In an article on the original 1931 plan it was stated that 30 percent of estimated demand for tires would not be satisfied and the proportions in other branches of the industry were even higher (see Belyi, “Promyshlenno-finansovyi plan,” p. 4).

21. See G. G. Bosse's report to the Third All-Union Meeting on Rubber-Bearing Plants (Kauchukonosy), entitled “Sovremennoe sostoianie nauki o kauchukonosakh i ee blizhaishie zadachi,” reprinted in ZRP, 6, no. 9 (1931): 104.

22. Lel'chuk, Sozdanie khimicheskoi promyshlennosti SSSR, p. 300.

23. The choice of the figure ten would seem to suggest that the Five-Year Plan target for rubber consumption was by this time around one hundred thousand metric tons; 1932 consumption was in fact just over thirty thousand metric tons (see Eremaev, Iu, “Sozdanie sovetskogo kauchuka,” Kauchuk i rezina, 1937, no. 11, p. 49).Google Scholar In addition to ambitious planning and strategic interests, the growing foreign trade problems of the Soviet Union may have exerted some influence over such a decision (see Michael R., Dohan, “The Economic Origins of Soviet Autarky 1927/28-1934,” Slavic Review, 35, no. 4 [December 1976]: 613–22).Google Scholar

24. Lel'chuk, Sozdanie khimicheskoi promyshlennosti SSSR, p. 300.

25. This is reported by Lur'e ( “Istoricheskaia spravka,” p. 46). Lel'chuk (Sozdanie khimicheskoi promyshlennosti SSSR, p. 300) states that “on the insistence of Stalin, the STO approved the maximum variant.”

26. Pekov, “Vospominaniia,” in 5” . V. Lebedev, p. 59; Tikhomirov, Oshibka Edisona, pp. 61-65.

27. Lur'e, “Istoricheskaia spravka,” p. 47.

28. It was finished in the spring of 1931 (Maksimenko and Musabekov, B. V. Byzov, p. 71).

29. Lur'e, “Istoricheskaia spravka,” p. 46.

30. Lel'chuk, Sosdanie khimicheskoi promyshlennosti SSSR, pp. 298-99.

31. Ibid., p. 299. Lebedev appears to have remained doubtful of the wisdom of proceeding at such a pace; at a meeting with Kirov, Kuibyshev, and Ordzhonikidze in August 1931, he was unenthusiastic about taking on the supervision of the construction of the full-scale plants, asking for time to think it over, in response to which it is reported that “Kirov winked at Ordzhonikidze and Kuibyshev; ‘O.K. to agree, leave it to me'” (Krasnikov, S.M.Kirov, p. 105).

32. Lur'e, “Istoricheskaia spravka,” p. 47; Sergienko, Sintcticheskii kauchuk, p. 183.

33. A. I. Gelikh and V. P. Komarov in SK, 1, no. 1 (1932): 16.

34. Dvadtsat’ piat’ let zavoda sinteticheskogo kauchuka (Iaroslavl', 1958), p. 8; Tikhomirov, Oshibka Edisona, p. 77.

35. O. Osipov[-Shmidt] in Pravda, August 27, 1932; Tikhomirov, Oshibka Edisona, p. 84.

36. In 1931, production of refined copper was less than in 1929/30 (Sotsialisticheskoe stroitel'stvo SSSR, ed. A. S. Mendel'son [Moscow, 1935], p. 190).

37. O. Osipov[-Shmidt] in Pravda, August 27, 1932.

38. Ibid. A recent writer gives a figure of 5 percent (see Mit'kova, T. N., Pervenets ISK: Iz istorii Iaroslavskogo savoda sinteticheskogo kauchuka [Iaroslavl, 1965], p. 37).Google Scholar

39. O. Osipov[-Shmidt] in Pravda, August 27, 1932.

40. A. G. Gorodishcher in SK, 1, no. 2 (1932): 21.

41. Ibid.; Brezhneva, L. P., “Deiatel'nost’ Iaroslavskoi partiinoi organizatsii po razvitiiu li rezinokhimicheskoi promyshlennosti v 1931-1934 godakh,” in Is istorii organizatsii Verkhnego Povol'zhia, ed. Gerasimov, N. V., part 2 (Iaroslavl, 1967), pp. 27–28 Google Scholar; Tikhomirov, Oshibka E Edisona, pp. 77-78.

42. Mit'kova, Pervenets SK, p. 39.

43. O. Osipov[-Shmidt] in Pravda, August 27, 1932.

44. Gelikh and Komarov in SK, 1, no. 1 (1932): 16-17; Mit'kova, Pervenets SK, p. 41.

45. SK, 1, no. 3 (1932): 2.

46. Tikhomirov, Oshibka Edisona, pp. 80-82.

47. See Davies, R. W., The Soviet Economic Crisis of 1931-1933, University of Birmingham, Centre for Russian and East European Studies, SIPS, Discussion Paper, no. 4 (Birmingham, 1976).Google Scholar

48. Tikhomirov, Oshibka Edisona, p. 75.

49. Brezhneva, “Deiatel'nost’ Iaroslavskoi partiinoi organizatsii,” pp. 27-28; Dvadtsal' piaf let, p. 8; Mit'kova, Pervenets SK, p. 37; Tikhomirov, Oshibka Edisona, pp. 78, 82-88.

50. Osipov-Shmidt, O. P., “Osnovnye zadachi rabotnikov sinteticheskogo kauchuka,” SK, 2, no. 1 (1933): 1.Google Scholar

51. Dvadtsaf piaf let, pp. 20-22; Gelikh and Komarov in SK, 1, no. 1 (1932): 17-18.

52. Osipov-Shmidt, “Osnovnye zadachi,” p. 3. For example, as much as 40 percent of the crude butadiene was lost while undergoing purification.

53. Brezhneva, “Deiatel'nost’ Iaroslavskoi partiinoi organizatsii,” p. 47; Dvadtsaf piaf let, p. 17.

54. The problems surrounding the utilization of synthetic rubber by the rubber industry are the subject of continuing work by the author.

55. Ministerstvo vneshnei torgovli SSSR, Vneshniaia torgovlia SSSR za 1918-1940 gg.: Statisticheskii obsor (Moscow, 1960), pp. 351 and 411.Google Scholar

56. Guchko, A. A., ed., Istoriia vtoroi mirovoi voiny 1939-1945, vol. 3 (Moscow, 1974), p. 377.Google Scholar