The Soviet State, Civil Society and Moscow Politics: Stability and Order in Early NEP, 1921–1924

  • Richard Sakwa


Mikhail Pokrovskii’s view that history was the most political of all the sciences was demonstrated once again with a vengeance as the historiography of the New Economic Policy (NEP) followed the trajectory of rising hopes then dashed expectations of Gorbachev’s perestroika, in its way reminiscent of NEP’s concessions by the state to the market and society.1 Social scientists are often called upon to predict the future, but the Soviet historian’s lot is a much more difficult one: to predict the past.2 In the last years of Soviet power the political agenda changed with startling rapidity, and today the newly-opened archives are likely to modify our understanding of the political processes shaping Soviet development.


Civil Society Trade Union Communist Party Central Committee Party Democracy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    See R. W. Davies, Soviet History in the Gorbachev Revolution (London, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 3.
    Lewis H. Siegelbaum, Soviet State and Society Between Revolutions, 1918–1929 (Cambridge, 1993), p. 4.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    For the concept of a ‘socialist civil society’, see I. Szelenyi, ‘Socialist Opposition in Eastern Europe: Dilemmas and Prospects’ in R. L. Tokes (ed.), Opposition in Eastern Europe (London, 1979), pp. 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 6.
    Something of the like is implied in Philip G. Roeder’s Red Sunset: The Failure of Soviet Politics (Princeton, NJ, 1993). He uses the critical insights of the so-called ‘new institutionalism’, focusing on the dynamic inter-relationship between institutions and political behaviour, to suggest a model of Soviet politics that transcends simplistic contrasts between the state and civil society.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    See John Hoffman, ‘The Coercion/Consent Analysis of the State under Socialism’ in Neil Harding (ed.), The State in Socialist Society (London, 1984).Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    ‘Bonapartism as a Regime of Crisis’ in Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (London, 1973), pp. 273–9.Google Scholar
  7. 11.
    L. Martov, ‘Razlozhenie gosudarstva ili ego zavoevanie?’, Sotsialisticheskii vestnik, no. 14/15, 1 September 1921, p. 3.Google Scholar
  8. 32.
    V. Sorin, Rabochaya Gruppa, (Moscow, 1924).Google Scholar
  9. The manifesto is on pp. 97–112 which, among other things, called on workers to fight for Soviet democracy and thus, like the Kronstadt insurgents earlier, distinguished between Soviet power and that of the Bolsheviks. See also E. H. Carr, The Interregnum 1923–24 (Harmondsworth, 1969), p. 300Google Scholar
  10. Isaac Deutscher, The Prophet Unarmed: Trotsky, 1921–1929 (Oxford, 1959), p. 107.Google Scholar
  11. 35.
    A. Yugov, ‘Krizis NEPa’, SV, no. 21–2 (67–8), 27 November 1923, pp. 4–8, at p. 8.Google Scholar
  12. 36.
    See Neil Harding, Lenins Political Thought, Volume 2 Theory and Practice in the Socialist Revolution (London, 1986) ch. 13.Google Scholar
  13. 37.
    The politicised and misleading nature of the so-called ‘declassing’ thesis is discussed by Richard Sakwa, Soviet Communists in Power: A Study of Moscow During the Civil War, 1918–21 (London, 1988), pp. 261–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. See also William Chase, Workers, Society and the Soviet State: Labor and Life in Moscow, 1918–1929 (Urbana and Chicago, 1987), pp. 16, 35Google Scholar
  15. Diane Koenker, ‘Urbanization and Deurbanization in the Russian Revolution and Civil War’, in Diane Koenker, William Rosenberg and Ronald G. Suny (eds), Party, State and Society in the Russian Civil War (Bloomington, 1989), pp. 81–8.Google Scholar
  16. 49.
    On the purge in Moscow, see Richard Sakwa, The Perestroika of the Party in 1921–22: the Case of Moscow’, Revolutionary Russia, vol. 2, no. 1 (June 1989), pp. 5–30, at pp. 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 59.
    Graeme Gill, The Origins of the Stalinist Political System (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 164–5;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. T. H. Rigby, ‘The Origins of the Nomenklatura System’, Soviet Studies, vol. 40 (October 1988), pp. 523–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 70.
    G. Zinoviev, ‘Novye zadachi partii’, Pravda, 7 November 1923. Zinoviev had already, at the XII party congress in April 1923, begun to exalt Lenin as the embodiment of the revolution and condemned any deviation, even from the left, as ‘objectively a Menshevik criticism’, XII s”ezd RKP(b), pp. 46–7.Google Scholar
  20. 71.
    See A. J. Polan, Lenin and the End of Politics (London, 1984);Google Scholar
  21. David W. Lovell, From Marx to Lenin: An Evaluation for Marxs Responsibility for Soviet Authoritarianism (Cambridge, 1984);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism: The Rise and Fall of Soviet Democracy (London, 1990).Google Scholar
  23. 72.
    Leonard Schapiro, The Origin of the Communist Autocracy: Political Opposition in the Soviet State, First Phase 1917–1922 (London, 1987), p. 335.Google Scholar
  24. 73.
    Cited in Anthony D’Agostino, Soviet Succession Struggles (Boston, 1988) p. 70.Google Scholar
  25. 75.
    Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution, in Rosa Luxemburg: Selected Writings, edited and introduced by Robert Looker (London, 1972), pp. 244–5.Google Scholar
  26. 76.
    See Massimo Salvadori, Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution, 1880–1938 (London, 1990).Google Scholar
  27. 77.
    Discussed by Claude Lefort, ‘The Contradiction of Trotsky’, in The Political Forms of Modern Society (Cambridge, Mass., 1986)Google Scholar
  28. 119.
    This self-censorship affected the Marxist historians in the 1920s, thus opening the door to the ‘solving’ of historical disputes by decree later. On this, see V. Yu. Sokolov, Istoriya i politika (K voprosu o soderzhanii i kharaktere diskussii sovetskikh istorikov 1920-khnachala 1930-kh gg.) (Tomsk, 1990).Google Scholar
  29. 134.
    The secrecy essential to the work of the apparatus is vividly portrayed in N. E. Rosenfeldt’s analysis of Stalin’s chancellery, Knowledge and Power:The Role of Stalin’s Secret Chancellery in the Soviet System of Government (Copenhagen, 1978).Google Scholar
  30. 149.
    For the development of the Lenin cult, see Nina Tumarkin, Lenin Lives! The Lenin Cult in Soviet Russia (Cambridge, Mass., 1983).Google Scholar
  31. 171.
    Over two decades ago Olga Narkiewicz, for example, demonstrated the inadequacies of rural administration, The Making of the Soviet State Apparatus (Manchester, 1970), ch. 8, and Roger Pethybridge in his One Step Backwards, Two Steps Forward reveals the ambivalencies in NEP administration. The inadequacy model reaches its apogee, admittedly for a later period, in J. Arch Getty’s Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933–38 (Cambridge, 1985), which focuses on centre-periphery struggle.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Sakwa

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations