I. Y. TRIFONOV. Classes and class struggle in the U.S.S.R. at the beginning of the NEP. Part I. The Struggle against the armed Kulak Counter-Revolution. L. LSU Publishing House, 1964, 311 p. The print run is 2,140. Price 1 rub. 46 kopecks. Part II. Preparation of an economic offensive against the new bourgeoisie. LSU Publishing House, 1969, 288 p. The print run is 2730. Price 1 rub. 20 kopecks.
The monograph under consideration consists of two parts and differs from other studies on similar problems1 (including the works of the author himself - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of Leningrad State University I. Ya. Trifonov 2) in two significant points. First, the author focused only on the reconstruction period (1921-1925), and if his earlier book covered the time from 1921 to 1937, now the chronological framework has significantly narrowed, which provided greater purposefulness and depth in the analysis of events. Secondly, while other works cover either one of the sections (city or village) of the class struggle, or one of its forms, the work in question seeks to cover the entire front of this struggle. But, despite this, the author still did not manage to completely overcome the well-known disunity between the first and second parts of the monograph.
The research is rich in factual and digital material, which is often published for the first time. The first part deals broadly with the history of the fight against Kulak banditry. The author shows that, on the one hand, the increased fluctuations of the petty-bourgeois masses, caused by
1 See, for example, V. P. Pogorelsky. The policy of the CPSU in relation to private capital in industry and trade of the USSR. 1917-1927. Moscow, 1960; Yu. S. Kukushkin. Village Soviets and the Class Struggle in the countryside (1921-1932). Moscow, 1968, et al.
2 See I. Y. Trifonov. Essays on the History of the Class Struggle in the USSR during the NEP Years (1921-1937), Moscow, 1960; V. I. Lenin and the Ideological Struggle at the Beginning of the NEP, Moscow, 1969, et al.
page 156
economic difficulties, and on the other hand, the failure of plans to overthrow Soviet power by interventionists and White Guards, brought the Kulak counter-revolution to the fore at the turn of the 1920s. Considering political kulak banditry as a legacy of "the intervention and civil war of 1918-1920 ..., its direct and organic continuation" (part I, p.298), I. Ya. Trifonov reveals various aspects of the struggle against it. The paper describes the socio-economic and political causes of kulak riots, their ideological and political nature, measures to eliminate them, including diplomatic activities, since gangs were often formed and based abroad.
The paper contains many facts and figures about the terrorist and sabotage activities of gangs, about the damage they caused to the Soviet Republic. The course of military operations to eliminate banditry in the main areas of its distribution is considered in detail. However, the not entirely successful structure of the presentation, in which the story of the military defeat of the mutinies was separated from the analysis of other activities in this area, as well as the predominance of purely military material, led to the fact that the social aspect of the study was somewhat pushed into the background and some issues remained out of the author's field of view. The aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside is revealed in fact without any connection with its aggravation in the city. While the first part of the monograph does not describe the impact of the revival of capitalist elements in the city on the strengthening of anti-Soviet kulak activity, the second part does not reveal the connection between the new bourgeoisie and its political leaders and the Kulak counter-revolution.
The first part of the work shows the role of the petty-bourgeois parties (and above all the Social Revolutionaries) in organizing banditry and the connection of these ideological inspirers and leaders of rebellions with foreign imperialists. In addition to the special section devoted to these questions, they are also discussed in the section "Program, political tactics and slogans of the Kulak counter-revolution". The materials of these two paragraphs are organically related to each other, in fact, they relate to the same problem, and such a division (and the paragraphs belong to different chapters) violates the integrity of the picture, causes unnecessary repetition and has an artificial character. At the same time, the second part of the book mentions the petty-bourgeois parties only in the section on co-operation. While in the first part of the book we can speak about some shortcomings in the presentation of this important issue, in the second part we have to admit that the author generally touches on it very little. As a result, there may be a misconception that the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks led counter-revolutionary activities only in the countryside and were not connected with the new bourgeoisie in the city. Meanwhile, the remnants of the petty-bourgeois parties pinned their hopes not only on the kulaks, but also on the Nepman bourgeoisie. This is evidenced by the materials contained in the work of I. Ya. Trifonov. The author quotes F. E. Dzerzhinsky as saying that the counter-revolution is fueled by "a surge of energy from the resurgent bourgeoisie" (part II, p. 77). He notes that the new bourgeoisie, which had acquired important positions in the sphere of commodity-market circulation and established contact with bourgeois - specialist elements in the Soviet apparatus, was also joined by a part of the intelligentsia, which formulated the ideological and political claims of the new bourgeoisie (part II, p.76). Perhaps the author does not address these issues in the second part because he felt it necessary to focus all his attention on the economic offensive against the new bourgeoisie. However, in this case, he departs from the general problem of the monograph, since the class struggle cannot be reduced only to the economic sphere, since the very preparation of the economic offensive against the new bourgeoisie included both an ideological and a political struggle. The author, as can be seen, in particular, from the substantial chapter on the socio-political and legal situation of the new bourgeoisie (ch. II), has interesting material on the Nepmans and could more broadly cover the little-studied question of their political activities. He cites the assessment given by A. S. Bubnov: "I must say that our new bourgeoisie... we can characterize it by saying that it suffers from apoliticalism and is not inclined to engage in politics. Of course, they are not averse to grumbling against the Soviet regime and denigrating the Communist Party in the most vile way on all corners. But to develop your own political ideology and dream about starting to act
page 157
against the Soviet government, they have no desire to do so" (part II, p. 78). However, such an assessment cannot be too absolutized. Of course, the Nepman bourgeoisie was not the same as the pre-revolutionary bourgeoisie, but even if it did not have a special desire to engage in politics, the bourgeois ideologues and petty - bourgeois parties in 1921-1922 sought to draw it into the political struggle, and there is no reason to believe that they did not succeed and the new bourgeoisie was completely outside politics.
In the second part of the work, there is an interesting paragraph full of vivid facts and documents about the activities of the punitive bodies aimed at suppressing abuses and crimes of the new bourgeoisie. It states that bribery, violations of labor legislation, official and economic crimes were qualified as "economic counter-revolution". But any counter-revolution, even if it is called economic, has its own political program. The struggle against such actions was a form of class struggle, just as the struggle of workers against entrepreneurs in private enterprises. While showing this struggle extensively, the author, when it comes to suppressing the crimes of the new bourgeoisie by the Cheka-OGPU, does not fully take into account the class and social aspect when considering the issue of taxing nepmans, and as a result, the rich and original factual material is not sufficiently linked to the general central theme of the study.
The strength of the second part of the monograph is its coverage of the process of preparing an economic offensive against the new bourgeoisie. However, the question of the correlation between the sources of capitalist accumulation is still not fully resolved. I. Y. Trifonov contradicts those who , like I. S. Kondurushkin and Yu. Larin3, believed that the new bourgeoisie created its capital mainly at the expense of criminal, criminal activities, robbing and deceiving the state (see part II, p. 11 - 12). However, the facts that he himself cites (part II, Chapter 1) speak in favor of the opinion he refutes. Apparently, it was necessary to show more fully all the sources of accumulation, and then try to determine how much of the capital the new bourgeoisie received at the expense of certain sources.
The work highlights the activities of central and local party bodies in guiding the workers ' struggle to strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat. The first part contains a lot of interesting materials about the work of local party organizations to eliminate banditry. They show how the party organizations involved broad sections of the peasantry in the fight against the gangs, their systematic assistance to the Cheka and regulation of punitive policies, agitation and propaganda work, etc. The second part draws attention to data on party organizations in private enterprises, on the work of the commission of the MK of the RCP (b) on party work for them, on the strengthening of party influence in cooperation, etc.
Trifonov's monograph, despite its shortcomings, is a significant contribution to the historiography of the new economic policy and will take its rightful place among the works on the history of the recovery period.
3 See I. S. Kondurushkin. Private capital before the Soviet court. Moscow-L. 1927; Yu. Larin. Private Capital in the USSR, Moscow-L. 1927.
page 158
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2023-2025, BIBLIO.VN is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Vietnam |