Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T00:35:02.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Lenin Levy” and the Social Origins of Stalinism: Workers and the Communist Party in Moscow, 1921-1928

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

John B. Hatch
John B. Hatch*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Shortly before Lenin's death in early 1924, the Thirteenth Party Conference undertook an ambitious program to recruit thousands of workers into the Communist party. Subsequently known as the Lenin Levy—in memory, ironically, of the party's main adversary of mass worker recruitments—this campaign, which was repeated in 1925 and 1927, marked a key stage in the social and organizational history of the Soviet Communist party, for it brought the party into close contact with the shop floor for the first time since 1917.

Western historians are divided over the significance to be attached to this episode. Many echo the views held by prominent party leftists that worker recruitments were a cosmetic response to the problem of bureaucratism and a convenient means to swamp the party with members obedient to the secretariat.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , Winter 1989 , pp. 558 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Research for this article was made possible by the International Research and Exchanges Board, the Social Science Research Council, the University of Michigan Center for Russian and East European Studies, and the Graduate Division of the University of California, Irvine.

1. For example, see Daniels, Robert, Conscience of the Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard Univeristy Press, 1969), 238 Google Scholar; Schapiro, Leonard, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 2nd ed. (New York: Vintage, 1971, 313–314 Google Scholar. For a recent restatement of this view, see Hosking, Geoffrey, The First Socialist Society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985, 143–144 Google Scholar.

2. Deutscher, Isaac, The Prophet Unarmed: Trotsky, 1921–1929 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959, 135–136 Google Scholar.

3. Carr, E. H., Socialism in One Country 1924–1926, 3 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1958) 1: 106–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fitzpatrick, Shelia, The Russian Revolution 1917–1932 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 97 Google Scholar (See also, Fainsod, Merle, How Russia is Ruled, rev. ed. [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965], pp. 250–251)Google Scholar. Rigby, T. H., Communist Party Membership in the U.S.S.R., 1917–1967 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1968), 117 Google Scholar. For a recent Soviet treatment of this episode, see Lipilin, Iu. A. and Sachovskii, G. A., Leninskii prizyv v leningradskoi partiinoi organizatsii (Leningrad: Leninzdat, 1984 Google Scholar.

4. Exceptions to this include Rosenberg, William, “Smolensk in the 1920s: Party-Worker Relationsand the ‘Vanguard Problem, '” Russian Review 2 (1977): 125–150 Google Scholar; Chase, William, Workers, Society, and the Soviet Stale. Labor and Life in Moscow, 1918–1929 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987 Google Scholar; and Kuromiya, Hiroaki, “The Crisis of Proletarian Identity in the Soviet Factory, 1928–1929,” Slavic Review 44 (Summer 1985): 280–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. On the 1921 crisis, see Schapiro, Leonard, Origin of the Communist Autocracy, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977, 296–297 Google Scholar; Avrich, Paul, Kronstadt 1921 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970), 35–36 Google Scholar; Chase, Workers, 48–52; Matiugan, A. A., Moskva vperiod vosstanovleniianarodnogo khoziaistva 1921–1925 (Moscow: Moskovskii Rabochii, 1947), 17 Google Scholar.

6. On the Moscow workers’ movement before 1918, see Bonnell, Victoria, Roots of Rebellion: Workers'Politics and Organizations in St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1900–1914 (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1983 Google Scholar; Koenker, Diane, Moscow Workers and the 1917 Revolution (Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1981)Google Scholar; and Engelstein, Laura, Moscow 1905: Working Class Organizations and PoliticalConflict (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

7. Tverdokhlev, A. A., “Chislennost’ i sostav rabochego klassa Moskvy v 1917–1937 gg.,” VestnikMoskovskogo Universiteta 1 (1970), 22 Google Scholar; Chase, Workers, 33–35.

8. Koenker, Diane, “Urbanization and Deurbanization in the Russian Revolution and Civil War,” Journal of Modern History 57 (September 1985): 424–450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pravda, May 25, 27, and 31, 1921.

9. In 1925, 155, 661 industrial workers were employed in Moscow compared to 148, 212 in 1913 (tstoriia rabochikh Moskvy [Moscow: Nauka, 1983], 138). See Bas'kina, L. I., Rabochii klass SSSR nakanunesotsialisticheskoi industrializatsii (Moscow: Izd. Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1981), 133 Google Scholar.

10. See Chase's discussion in Workers, 120–121, 246–247, and 295–296.

11. Examples of these differences can be found in Pravda, 22 August 1922 and Izvestiia MK, 12 December1922. See also Chase's discussion in Workers, 236–238. The use of the unemployed to reduce workingconditions prompted workers at the Dinamo metal factory in April 1923 to request the factory committeeto transfer older workers to higher ranks rather than allowing lower-skilled workers to take those jobs. SeeCentral State Archive of the October Revolution (TsGAOR), fond 100, opis 7, delo 94, list 28. Similartactics were used by railroad administrators in 1923. See TsGAOR, f. 5451, op. 7, d. 127, I. 16. On management'suse of unemployment to defeat a strike at Number 1 State Instrumentation Factory Geofizika (formerlyShtabe) see Sotsialisticheskii Vestnik, 1 January 1923.

12. On the attitudes of skilled metal workers, see Pravda, 27 and 31 May 1921; and on their reactionto piece rates, TsGAOR, f. 100, op. 7, d. 80, 1. 2. On printer resistance to piece rates and norm increases, see Moskovskii Pechatnik, 12 July and 22 September 1923; Otchet pravleniia Moskovskogo gub'otdelaVSRPP ot 1 sentiabria 1922 g. po 1 sentiabr’ 1923 g. (Moscow: 1923), 6, 27, and 30; Otchet Moskvoskogogubernskogo otdela Professional'nykh Soiuza Rabochikh Poligraficheskogo Proizvodstva s maia 1921 g. pofevral’ 1922 g. (Moscow: 1922), 3; Treiti gubernskii s “ezd Moskovskogo gubernskogo Soiuza RabochikhPoligraficheskogo Proizvodstva 16–20 fevralia 1922 g. (Moscow: 1922), 9–10.

13. More than one-half of the sixty-five reported strikes occurring in Moscow in the last half of 1922were due to wage disputes. See Mel'nichanskii, G. N. Moskovskie profsoiuzy v obstanovke NEPa (Moscow: 1923), 29–30 Google Scholar. For a discussion of the Moscow strike movement, see John Hatch, “Labor and Politics inNEP Russia: Workers, Trade Unions, and the Communist Party in Moscow, 1921–1926” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine, 1985), 191–212 and 559–570. On labor arbitration see McAuley, Mary, Labor Disputes in Soviet Russia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969, 11–35 Google Scholar; and Hatch, “Labor and Politics, “182–191 and 547–555. The number of strikes and other disturbances can be found in Mel'nichanskii, Moskovskie profsoiuzy, 29–30. For disturbances in the metal and printing industries, see Hatch, “Labor and Politics,” ff. 17. Bolshevik reported that in 1925 96.5 percent of all strikes within the Soviet Union occurredwithout trade union sanction: “Nekotorye nedochety raboty proforganizatsii,” Bolshevik (30 July 1925): 76–77. For Moscow, see XHaia Moskovskaia gubernskaia konferenlsiia RKP (b) 14–21 maia 1924 g. stenograficheskiiotchet (Moscow: 1924), 1 and 48; Rabola Moskovskogo komiteta RKP (b) fevral'-noiabr'1925 g. (Moscow: 1925), 56; and Biulleten’ 4i raipartkonferentsii (Zam. raikom) po stenograficheskimzapisiam (Moscow: 1925), 97–99. Industrial relations were similarly turbulent elsewhere in Russia. SeeChase, Workers, 228–231.

14. Although the workers’ wage offensive was not successful in all branches of industry (most notablyin the metal and railroad industries), wage increases generally outstripped productivity gains in NEP's earlyyears. See Chase, Workers, 218–219, Hatch, “Labor and Politics,” 40–44; and Carr, E. H., The Interregnum 1923–1924 (London: Macmillan, 1954), 71 Google Scholar.

15. On the Moscow Mensheviks, see Hatch, John, “Working Class Politics in Moscow during theEarly NEP: Mensheviks and Workers’ Organizations, 1921–1922,” Soviet Studies 4 (October 1987): 556–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Ocherki istorii Moskovskoi organizatsii KPSS (Moscow: 1969), 373 and 382; Kommunisticheskiitrud, 23 December 1921. See also. Schapiro's discussion in Communist Party, 239–240. For factory cellsecretaries and cell bureau members see Otchet Sokol'nicheskogo raionnogo komiteta RKP (b) (mai-dek.1923 g.) (Moscow: 1923), 71; and Otchet Krasnopresnenskogo raikoma RKP (b) za period s 1-go iiunia pol-oe dekabria 1923 g. (Moscow; 1923), 32–33.

17. See Rigby, Communist Party Membership, 102–103.

18. The purge most heavily affected members from nonproletarian social backgrounds who joined theparty in 1919 and 1920. In all, 18 percent of the members of the MPO were expelled (Izvestiia MK 1 [20March 1922], 14–15; Rigby, Communist Party Membership, 96–100). Of the Communists expelled byMoscow's Zamoskvoretskii district party organization in 1923, 60 percent were workers by current occupation (see Otchet. mart-dekabr’ 1923 goda (Zam. raionnyi k-t) (Moscow; 1923), 20). I discuss workers'reasons for not joining the party in Hatch, “Labor and Politics,” 366–370. For reports of insensitivity toworkers’ needs, see Pravda, 14 September and 14 November 1923; and Rabochaia Moskva, 1 May and 15July 1922.

19. Pravda, 3 October and 3 November 1923.

20. Komiacheika, 15 December 1923. The comments by the Moscow Communist are reported inPravda, 15 November 1923.

21. On Zelenskii's views, see Vosmaia gub. konferentsiia Moskovskoi organizatsii RKP (23–25 marta1922 g.) (Moscow: 1922), 38–40, 50–54. On this issue, Zelenskii stood to the left of his chief patron in thePolitburo, Zinoviev.

22. hvestiiaMK, 12 December 1922.

23. See the events surrounding the expulsion of Berzina and Demidov from the Moscow Metal Workers'Union in Materialy Ill-ei Moskovskoi gubernskoi konferentsii Vserossiiskogo Soiuza Rabochikh Metallistov5–8 iiunia 1923 g. (Moscow: 1923), 4 and 23. In September, amid rumors that a general strike was inthe offing, the organization was suppressed by the political police (Chase, Workers, 232–233; Sotsialislicheskiivestnik. 6 July 1924). On Workers’ Truth, see John Hatch, “The Politics of Mass Culture: Workers, Communists, and Proletkul't in the Development of Workers’ Clubs, 1921–1925, Russian HistorylHistoireRusse 13 (Summer/Fall 1986): 119–148. On the way the Moscow party's trade union and factory cellslined up in the factional politics, see Pravda, 28 December 1923 and 5–17 January 1924.

24. The TsK's August 1924 resolution “On Wage Policy” called for across-the-board increases inwork norms and a holding action on wages (see Chase, Workers, 235). Indicative of the hardening lineagainst wage increases was the defeat of a motion at the May 1924 Moscow Party Conference to add anamendment to the conference's MK resolution recognizing the necessity to increase wages in lagging sectorsof the economy (see Xtl-aia Moskovskaia gubernskaia konferenlsiia RKP, 88).

25. Rigby, Communist Party Membership, 124; Pravda, 19 December 1923.

26. Rigby, Communist Party Membership, 167; Pravda, 16 October 1927; Lenin i Moskovskiebol'sheviki, ed. A. Spitsyna (Moscow; Moskovskii Rabochii, 1977), 467; Pravda, 4 March 1928.

27. Figures on MPO membership can be found in Moskovskaia organizatsiia RKP (b) v Isifrakh, 2vols. (Moscow: 1925) 1: 27; Komiacheka, no. 10 (16 May 1924); see, also, Hatch, “Labor and Politics, 446.On the social composition of the lenintsy, see Pravda, 26 March, 8 April, 14 May and 10 December 1924;Komiacheika, 16 May 1924; Bolshevik 10 (1924): 34–41; Otchet o rabote Baumanskogo raionnogokomiteta RKP (b) za period raboty mai-noiabr’ 1924 g. i materialy k IV-i raiparlkonferentsii (Moscow: 1924), 21; Rabota Zamoskvoretskogo raionnogo komiteta RKP ianvar'-aprel’ 1924 g. (Moscow: 1924), 4;and Otchet o rabota Khamovnicheskogo raionnogo komiteta mai-dekabr’ 1924 g. (Moscow: 1924), 40.

28. Istoriia rabochii klass Moskvy 1917–1945, ed. T. D. Loseva (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), 189. Forthe lenintsy in the Red Army and the number who were advanced workers see, Pravda, 27 March and 2August 1924, and 6 February and 20 March 1925; Rabota Zamoskvoretskogo raionnogo komiteta … 1924, 4; Otchet… Baumanskogo raionnogo komiteta … mai-noiabr’ 1924, 21; Krupskaia's remarks in Osnovnyevoprosy kul'traboty 4-i Moskovskoi gub. mezhsoiuznoi kul't. konf. (Moscow: 1924), 8; and Ocherkiistorii Moskovskoi organizatsii KPSS, 2 vols. (Moscow: Nauka, 1983) 2: 271.

29. Thus, as late as mid-1925, party membership rates in the largely female work forces of the large, provincial textile factories often remained under 5 percent. See, Moskovskaia organizatsiia RKP (b) vtsifrakh 1: 27.

30. Otchet SokoVnicheskogo raionnogo komiteta RKP (b) (mai-dek. 1924 g.) (Moscow: 1924), 24;Otchet … Baumanskogo raionnogo komiteta … mai-noiabr’ 1924, 20. One of the prime tasks of thecontrol commissions in this period was to weed out these troublemakers, (see Rabota Moskovskogo komitetaRKP (b) apret'-dekabr’ 1924 g. [Moscow: 1925], 63–64).

31. Pravda, 2 August 1924.

32. Rabola Moskovskogo komiteta … 1925, 134; Pravda, 2 and 6 August 1924; and Bolshevik 10 (1924): 42. At the Sixteenth Moscow Party Conference in November 1927, N. A. Uglanov, the MK secretarycriticized rank and file members for acting out of place and contesting party decisions in nonparty meetings (see Pravda 25 November 1927). For other reports, see Pravda, 13 January, 25 March, and 23 September1926. Specific instances of this kind of activity were reported in 1926–1927 among Moscow's municipaltransport workers, chemical workers, food-processing workers and leather workers (see Pravda, 24 April, 19 May, and 12 and 24 June 1926).

33. Strike actions are described in Biullelen’ Vl-oi konferentsii Krasnopresnenskoi organizatsiiRKP (b) (Moscow: 1925), 50 and 63; Olchet… Baumanskogo raionnogo komiteta … mai-noiabr’ 1924g., 26–27. See also, Sotsialisticheskii Vestnik, 16 August and 1 December 1924. Quotations are fromBiulleten’ 4-i partkonferentsii (2am. raikom), 116, and Otchet… Baumanskogo raionnogo komiteta …mai-noiabr’ 1924, 26–27.

34. Party officials are quoted in Rabota Moskovskogo komitela RKP … 1925, 134; Zelenskii in XIIaiaMoskovskaia gubernskaia konferentsiia RKP, 64–65; and the definition of khvostizm is found inRezoliulsii i postanovleniia XIV Moskovskoi gubkonferentsii VKP (b) (Moscow: 1926), 65.

35. Pravda, 24 and 25 April 1926.

36. Pravda, 2 and 6 August 1924; Materialy IV Sokol'nicheskoi raionnoi partiinoi konferentsiiRKP (b) (Moscow: 1924), 27; Sotsialisticheskii Veslnik, 29 October 1925.

37. See Ocherki istorii Moskovskoi organizatsii KPSS 2: 274; Pravda, 29 October 1924; RabotaMoskovskogo komitela … 1924, 197; and Spytsina, Moskovskie bol'sheviki, 101. See, also, Kenez, Peter, The Birth of the Propaganda State: Soviet Methods of Mass Mobilization 1917–1929 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, 132–133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In Krasno-presnenskii raion, attendance rates in political-educationcircles averaged 84 percent of those enrolled; 61 percent actively participated. Metalists were the most activeparticipants; textile workers the least (see Ko vsem chlenam RKP Krasnoi-presni avgust-sentiabr’ 1924 g.[Moscow: 1924], 1–7 and 15).

38. Rapid promotion can be found in Rabota Moskovskogo komiteta … 1924, 65. Political illiteracywas the most common reason given for failure to be advanced; passivity and lack of self-control were otherfrequently cited reasons (Rabota Moskovskogo komiteta … 1924, 293; Pravda, 23 December 1924, and4 October 1925). Instructions regarding full-member status are in Pravda, 13 December 1924 and 6 January1925, and Izvestiia MK, no. 6 (September 1925), 11. See, also, Rigby, Communist Party Membership, 130.

39. This point was stressed at a meeting of Moscow partkom secretaries, at which it was noted thatmany lenintsy were prepared to undertake responsible party work (Pravda, 27 March 1924).

40. Pravda, 25 October 1925; Rabota Moskovskogo komiteta … 1924, 296 and 312; RabotaMoskovskogo komiteta … 1925. 101. Although ot stanka representation increased in 1925, the increasewas incremental (see Moskovskaia organizatsiia RKP v tsifrakh 2: 28–31).

41. Rabota Moskovskogo komiteta … 1924, 294; Rabota Zamoskvoretskogo raionnogo komiteta… 1924, 15; Pravda, 10 December 1924; Biulleten’ V-i Krasnopresnenskoi raionnoi konferentsii RKP (b)141X11–24 (Moscow: 1924), 8; Otchet SokoVnicheskogo raionnogo komiteta RKP (b) … 1924, 25; Otchet… Baumanskogo raionnogo komiteta RKP (b) … mai-noiabr’ 1924, 23.

42. Pravda, 27 May 1924, shows the activities of lenintsy. Although most Communists serving onlocal party committees (64 percent) and on the Moscow Control Commission (60 percent) in late 1925 camefrom proletarian backgrounds, less than 15 percent were ot stanka workers, none of whom were lenintsy (Moskovskaia organizatsiia RKP v tsifrakh 2: 27). By late 1927 approximately a third of the members of theKrasnopresnenskii and Zamoskvoretskii raikomy were ot stanka workers (see Pravda, 4 November 1927.The concentration of important assignments in a few hands is found in Otchet … Khamovnicheskogoraionnogo komiteta … 1924, 11–13; Moskovskaia organizatsiia RKP v tsifrakh 2: 74; and Hatch, “Laborand Politics,” 655. Criticism of cell officials is in Otchet … Baumanskogo raionnogo komiteta … mainoiabr'1924, 10, and Pravda, 13 January 1926.

43. Whether this counts as dullmindedness is another question. Certainly, workers were not necessarilyhappy about NEP, but wages had improved and the invitation to join the party promised a partnershipof benefit to the personal interests of at least the workers involved. On the other hand, the opposition was nota workers’ opposition per se; it made no claim to speak for workers as did the Workers’ Opposition andWorkers’ Group, and, until 1926–1927, it did not engage in mass agitation in workers’ organizations.

44. Rosenberg, William, “The Democratization of Russia's Railroads in 1917,” American HistoricalReview 5 (December 1981), 984.Google Scholar

45. Relations between old and new members are discussed in Rabola Moskovskogo komiteta …1924, 63–64. Officials’ use of power is in Pravda, 27 February, 4 April, 6 and 13 August, and 10 December1924; Ocherki istorii Moskovskoi organizatsii KPSS (1983) 2: 274. At the Sixteenth Moscow Party Conferencein November 1927 Uglanov criticized cells for treating businesslike criticism as the product ofMensheviks and loudmouths (Pravda, 25 November 1927).

46. Otchet Krasnopresnenskogo raikoma RKP (b) ianvar'-oktiabr’ 1925 g. (Moscow: 1925), 20. InZamoskvoretskii, for example, some cells were singled out for their “insufficient mastery of the party line inthe sphere of inner-party democracy.” At the Kalinin Arms Factory, lenintsy candidates were excluded fromcell meetings: “Cell secretaries frequently work[ed] alone, uniting around themselves a very limited numberof comrades” instead of trying to encourage the development of a firm aktiv. In another case, during theelection of representatives to a party conference, the cell bureau at the printing factory, Number 36 tipografiia, formed a special commission to draw up a delegate list while refusing to permit the cell membership tovote on it; see Biulleten’ 4-i parlkonferentsii (Zam. raikom), 252; Biullelen’ Il-i partiinoi konferentsiiZamoskvoretskogo raiona (Moscow: 1924), 12; Materialy k4-i raipartkonfernetsii (Zam. raikom) (Moscow: 1925), 7–8; Komiacheika. 18 March 1924.

47. See Pravda, 27 June and 6 November 1925; Otchet KrasnoPresnenskogo raikoma … 1925, 28–29; and Rabota Moskovskogo komiteta … 1925, 5.

48. Bauman is quoted in Pravda 15 May 1926. The danger of collusion is seen in Pravda 15 May1924 and 21 July 1925; Komiacheika, 18 March 1924; and Otchet … Baumanskogo raionnogo komiteta… mai-noiabr’ 1924, 25.

49. Pravda, 4 April 1924, and 14-aia Moskovskaia gubernskaia konferentsiia. Biulleten’ (Moscow: 1925), 10.

50. Pravda, 10 September 1925; 24 March and 8 and 10 April and 19 May 1926, and 12 August 1927

51. Pravda, 27 July 1927. Uglanov's statements are in Pravda, 21 September 1926. This cynicismincluded the formation of factory-based oppositionist cells and “workers’ groups” in a number of enterprisesand unions. On the politicization of labor strife see Pravda, 30 March 1927; 14-aia Moskovskaia gubernskaiakonferentsiia, 15; Rabota Moskovskogo gubernskogo soveta professional'nykh soiuzov za okliabr’ 1924g.-ianvar’ 1926 g. (Moscow; 1926), 105–106; Izvesliia MK, June 1925; Rabota Rogozhko-Simonovskogoraionnogo komiteta RKP (b) s ianvaria po oktiabr’ 1925 g. (Moscow: 1925), 25; Sotsialistieheskii Vestnik, 28 September 1925.

52. Qualitative recruitment and deproletarianization are in Pravda, 25 March and 27 September 1927.In January 1927 the TsK issued a resolution on this theme that called for heightened tempos of worker recruitmentso that eventually 50 percent of the party's mass membership would be composed of ot stankaworkers (Pravda, 7 January 1927). On membership composition, see Pravda, 25 August and 25 November1927. Deproletarianization was blamed on a variety of factors, including transfers, promotions, and aweeding-out process that included both expulsions (usually for alcoholism or violations of party discipline)and voluntary terminations that, according to official sources, had nothing to do with any kind of “dissatisfactionor disagreement with party policy” (Pravda, 29 March 1927). See also the reports in Pravda, 2 April 1926 and 18 January and 9 October 1927. On the party officials’ awareness of the insufficiency of the rate ofworker recruitment achieved through qualitative means, see Bauman's August 1927 MK circular as it appearedin Pravda, 12 August 1927. Drop-out rates were lower in factories with many skilled workers andfewer numbers of workers with ties to the village (see Pravda, 1 January, 29 March, 25 August, and 25 November 1927).

53. The TsK resolution regarding normalization of party growth appeared in Pravda, 16 October1927. Worker percentages are in Pravda, 16 May 1928, and the growth of factory cells is in Pravda22 December 1927 and 2 August 1928. The experience of workers is found in Pravda, 4 March 1928.For reports on various Moscow districts and factories, see Pravda, 20 November 1927 and 1, 7, and 22 January 1928.

54. Pravda, 24 December 1927. In Krasnopresnenskii district, rates of application varied from 68 outof every 1, 000 metal workers to only 22 for 1, 000 textile workers (Pravda, 1 January 1928). According tothe figures cited by Riutin, 1 out of every 40.6 metal workers applied to join the party during the OctoberLevy, but only 1 out of every 64.8 textile workers (Pravda, 10 January 1928). The characterization of workers'motives for joining is repeated in Pravda, 18 and 20 November 1927 and 10 January and 6 February 1928.

55. Pravda, 25 November 1927. For examples of obstructionism, see the reports in Pravda 22 December1927 and 7 and 10 January, 6 February, and 19 April 1928. Political education entailed explainingthe party's vanguard role and differences between labor relations in socialist and capitalist factories as well ascombating anti-Semitism, egalitarianism, spetseedstvo, and religion (Pravda, 10 January 1928).

56. See reports on the drive for rationalization in Pravda, 8 and 17 July, 31 August, 20 and 26 September1928; see also, Reiman, Michal, The Birth of Stalinism: The USSR on the Eve of the “ Second Revolution,” trans. Saunders, George, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987, 54–56 Google Scholar; and Carr, E. H., Foundations of a Planned Economy 1926–1929, 3 vols. (London; Macmillan, 1969) 2: 567 Google Scholar. Reports of officialsdelaying or obstructing rationalization are in Pravda, 25 November 1927 and 20 April and 23 May1928. The case of Orekhovo-Zuevskii Factory is in Pravda, 26 July 1928, and the loudmouth incident is inPravda, 2 September 1928 and, also, 13 July 1928.

57. See the reports in Pravda, 8, 24, and 26 July and 26 September 1928. On the expulsion of workers, see Pravda, 26 July 1928. In some large factories, terminations approached and even surpassed thenumber of admissions during this period (Pravda, 5 August 1928). See also Pravda, 3 February, 16 May, 13 July, and 5 August 1928. In Egorevskii uezd, only 3.3 out of every 100 workers were party members. InBogorodskii uezd, the percentage was 5.5 percent, and it was 7.5 percent in Moskovskii and Serpukhovskiiuezdy (Pravda, 19 June 1928).

58. On the Lackluster initiative of cell officials in implementing self-criticism, see Pravda, 17 July and14 and 15 September 1928. See also Chase's discussion of the self-criticism campaign in Workers, 281. OnUglanov's ouster, see Daniels, Conscience, 337–344.

59. For reports of oppositionists’ appeals and the voting results of several Moscow industrial cells, seePravda, 3, 5, 6, and 8 October 1926, and 19 and 20 August and 18 September 1927. Workers’ vacillationsare reported in Pravda, 20 October 1926, and the comment of the worker-Communist is in Pravda, 2 October1926.

60. Kuromiya, “The Crisis of Proletarian Identity in the Soviet Factory,” 294–295.

61. Bolshevik, no. 10 (1924): 34–41.1 have discussed the concentration of discontent among the lessskilledworkers in Hatch, “Labor and Politics,” 559–571.

62. Thus, according to Pravda, 24 September 1927, while they may have been unhappy about thebehavior of this or that cell official, in general workers had faith in “their” party. On relations betweenworkers and spetsy, see Bailes, Kendall, Technology and Society under Lenin and Stalin (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978), 44–69 Google Scholar; and Lampert, Nicholas, The Technical Intelligentsia and the SovietState (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1979, 12–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63. Although much more research needs to be done on this question, the main outlines of worker-Communist activism and vydvizhenie during the First Five Year Plan can be found in Viola, Lynne, The BestSons of the Fatherland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987 Google Scholar; Fitzpatrick, Sheila, Education and SocialMobility in the Soviet Union 1921–1934 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 184–189Google Scholar; and Chase, Workers, 271–282.

64. Lewin, Moshe, The Making of the Soviet System (New York: Pantheon, 1985), 24 Google Scholar. For the experienceof the Stalinist Communist party in other settings, see the essays in Blue Collar Workers in EasternEurope, ed., Triska, Jan F. and Gati, Charles (London: Allen and Unwin, 1981 Google Scholar; and K. Evanson, Robert, “Regime and Working Class in Czechoslovakia 1948–1968,” Soviet Studies 2 (April 1985): 248–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar