Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North and Cold War Ideology

Abstract

During the Soviet period, much of Western scholarship on the smaller indigenous groups of the Russian north and far east-that is, Peoples-was shaped by Cold War ideology. In this paper, we analyze ways in which Cold War ideology distorted representations of Soviet policy toward Peoples, and some of the consequences of these distortions.1By Northern we mean the 26 relatively small, indigenous groups of the north and far east of the former U.S.S.R. which were designated as nationalities by the Soviet state. Their traditional cultures were based on hunting, fishing, trapping, and reindeer breeding. In the late 1980s, the 26 Peoples ranged in population approximately 34 000 Nenets to approximately 200 Oroki (International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) 1990). Two larger groups in northern Siberia-the Sakha/Yakut and the Komi, each numbering around 300 000-were not counted among the smaller nationalities.Most of the Peoples lived in seven Autonomous Regions created by the Soviet state in the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic (RSFSR). By the 1960s, in practically all of these regions, Peoples were greatly outnumbered by people elsewhere in the U.S.S.R., mostly Russians (Armstrong 1978). Generally, the newcomers were transients who lived in urban centres while Northerners lived in rural areas.Cold War IdeologiesThe Cold War (1945-91) can be characterized as a contest between the former Soviet Bloc, led by the U.S.S.R., and the West, led by the U.S., which stopped short of direct U.S.-Soviet armed conflict largely because of the threat of mutual assured destruction posed by nuclear war. This contest involved, among other things, comparisons between various aspects of life in the West and the Soviet Bloc in an effort to marshal political support for capitalism or socialism. Such comparisons were embedded in particular ideologies. These ideologies attempted to provide answers to fundamental questions about the nature and direction of the West and the Soviet Bloc: why was each side the way it was? Was this good or bad? What should be done about it, if anything? (see Dolbeare and Dolbeare 1971; Eagleton 1991).Marxism-Leninism, the official ideology of the former U.S.S.R., was based on the view that capitalism involved exploitation of workers by capitalists (Bartels 1999), and that such exploitation had been eliminated in the U.S.S.R. The Soviet state, which owned the major means of production, communication, and exchange, viewed itseld as an instrument of working people's rule, and thus as democratic. It was illegal for individuals to own the major means of production, exchange and communication. Otherwise, exploitation would reappear. Surplus provided by Soviet workers was to be used to insure security of the state and the socialist social order, and to improve Soviet living standards (see Afanasyev et al. 1974; Bartels 1999). Revenues state-owned enterprises largely supported all social services, including housing, education, daycare, heat, light, medical care, and pensions. As a result, taxes were very low, as were basic living expenses such as the cost of certain food items, rent, utilities, and public transport, including internal air travel. Employment was guaranteed by the state. Soviet socialism was based on the principle, from each according to their ability, to each according to their work, and was seen as the penultimate stage in an evolutionary progression culminating in a stateless, technologicallyadvanced communist society based on the principle, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need (see Khorzov et al. 1977:393-406).In contrast, the ideological foundation of Western societies during the Cold War centred on freedom of individuals to publicly express their political views, to worship, to travel, to participate in a multiparty electoral system, and to own property, including the major means of production, communication and exchange. …