Topical Issues in the Study of Soviet Social Policy, 1917−1929

Abstract

A series of 100th anniversaries of recent years (the First World War, the Revolution of 1917, the Russian Civil War, the introduction of the NEP) has stimulated historians and representatives of related sciences (sociologists, philosophers, political scientists, culturologists, economic historians, etc.) to summarize the study of this turning point for the national history of the period, which is increasingly often regarded as homogeneous (“the time of wars and revolutions”), as well as its immediate consequences, stretching back to the 1920s and 1930s. The works published within the framework of the anniversaries and the discussions that flared up around them more clearly exposed the least studied and controversial aspects of the problems and made it possible to identify urgent tasks for the future. Quite expectedly, the focus was on subjects such as rethinking the causes of the revolutionary events and the role of various social groups in them; comparison of the events of February and October 1917, the degree of discontinuity and continuity of processes and the existence of alternative ways of Russia’s development; characteristics of the armed forces and political movements opposed to the Bolsheviks; the relation of “red” and “white” terror; problems of social stratification in postrevolutionary Russia and the relationship between the concepts of former people, the socially alien, economically dangerous elements, NEPmen; etc. In addition, summarizing the results of studying the revolution and its consequences has contributed to the revival of conceptual discussions about totalitarianism, the social base of the Soviet regime of the 1920s−1930s, and the features of the formation of civil society in Russia, as well as about the conditions for the formation and specifics of the “welfare state” of the Soviet type. At the same time, one should admit that the problem of the social policy of the Bolsheviks, which directly relates to many of the above conceptual or debatable issues, remained practically outside the framework of scientific, historical, and political discussions. Meanwhile, for example, the outcome of the Civil War and the further fate of Russia were largely determined by the nature and priorities of the social policy of the warring parties, the degree of the attractiveness of their slogans for ordinary people in the rear and at the front, as well as the ability to bring these slogans to life. The problems of continuity with the pre-Soviet past of the country, the novelty and relevance for society of the Bolsheviks’ transformations in the social sphere, and their compliance with the global trends of the era also seem key to understanding many debatable issues of early Soviet history. In particular, it is impossible to answer the question about the presence or absence of elements of civil society and the so-called “welfare state” in Soviet Russia without an objective assessment of the social slogans declared by the state and the methods of their implementation, as well as the nature of the interaction between the authorities and society in solving certain topical tasks.