Jessen & Richter (Eds.) (40 page)

T H E G R E A T S O V I E T P A R A D O X

153

the unions too might benefit from democratic elections. The suggestion

clearly startled the plenum delegates. L. M. Kaganovich, a Politburo mem-

ber and one of Stalin’s staunchest supporters, called out in surprise, “By

secret voting?” Shvernik shook his head doubtfully, “I don’t know about

secret voting.” There was general laughter in the hall, as one CC member

blurted out, “It’s frightening!” Shvernik replied thoughtfully, “I think this

wouldn’t be too bad.”11 And with these words, Shvernik launched what

would quickly become a mass campaign for union democracy.

The key speeches at the plenum were used to formulate its resolutions,

which in turn, set the future program of the Party. Calling for “mass con-

trol from below”, direct voting, individual candidates in place of lists,

secret ballots, and “the unlimited right to criticize candidates”, the reso-

lutions mandated new elections at every level of the Party hierarchy from

the primary Party organizations to the central committees of the republics

by May, and set terms of office not to exceed 18 months.12 Getty and

Naumov note that Zhdanov’s speech and others unleashed “serious insur-

rections” within the Party against the entrenched regional leadership.13

The plenum’s resolutions also became the new marching orders for the

unions, disseminated by union leaders from the VTsSPS to the shop floor.

The March issue of
Voprosy Profdvizheniia,
the main journal of the VTsSPS, paired publication of the resolutions with a searing editorial that excoriated

the unions and the VTsSPS from top to bottom. The editors wrote, “The

insufficiencies characterizing the Party, characterize the unions to an even

greater degree.” Their critique echoed Zhdanov’s language precisely: viola-

tions of union democracy,
kooptatsiia
, “Bureaucratic perversions”, “weakening ties with the masses”, “arrogance”, “toadying”, and suppression of

criticism.14 And in the unions, too, the call for democracy was wedded to

the politics of purge. VTsSPS leaders claimed that former oppositionists

——————

11 Materialy Fevral’sko-Martovskogo Plenuma TsK VKP (b) 1937 goda,
Voprosy istorii
, 10

(1995), 18, 21.

12 Materialy Fevral’sko-Martovskogo Plenuma TsK VKP (b) 1937 goda,
Voprosy istorii
, No.

7 (1993); Informatsionnoe Soobshchenie, 2–3.

13 See Getty and Naumov (1999, 358–60). For detailed discussion of the plenum, ibid., 364–419. Although the resolutions ostensibly called for more democracy, Getty and Naumov contend that the real aim of Stalin, Zhdanov and other leaders was not to empower the lower ranks, but to use them to weaken the regional leadership, thus strengthening power at the top. See also Getty, 1997, 25–26.

14 Itogi Plenuma TsK VKP (b) i Zadachi Profsoiuzov,
Voprosy profdvizheniia
, 5–6, Mart (1937), 4–8.

154

W E N D Y Z . G O L D M A N

occupied numerous posts. Mikhail P. Tomskii, a former head of the

VTsSPS, and Nikolai A. Uglanov, a former head of the People’s

Commissariat of Labor, had been key figures in the right deviation of the

late 1920s. When the Commissariat of Labor was eliminated in 1932, the

VTsSPS incorporated its functions along with hundreds of former rightists

on its staff. The Department of Social Insurance, for example, which pro-

vided support to sick and disabled workers, moved from the People’s

Commissariat of Labor to VTsSPS. Leaders now claimed that it “was rid-

dled with embezzlers and enemies of the people” who robbed millions of

rubles and “systematically disrupted pensions”. Skillfully blending anti-

oppositionist rhetoric with an appeal to workers’ needs, VTsSPS leaders

charged that “enemies of the people” organized accidents, violated safety

rules, embezzled union funds, and wrecked housing construction and so-

cial services. The NKVD had arrested leading officials in the chemical,

agricultural machine building, and metallurgical industries, among others,

yet the unions had failed to identify and stop “wrecking”.15

Echoing party leaders at the CC plenum, VTsSPS officials made the

same link between terror and democracy: wreckers flourished because

democracy had withered. “Enemies”, they argued, were “able to pursue

their dark, traitorous affairs because the unions did not encourage self

criticism, and did not heed the complaints and declarations of the work-

ers”. The unions had abandoned occupational health and safety and ig-

nored dangerous work environments.16 If the unions had been truly demo-

cratic organizations, run by and for workers, “wreckers” would not have

halted housing construction, disrupted the food supply, and created haz-

ardous conditions in the mines and factories. The solutions proposed by

VTsSPS leaders were identical to Zhdanov’s program for the Party: to

revive democracy, criticize the officials “who overlooked wreckers”, and

bring in “fresh blood” through democratic elections. Invoking a return to

“the authentic, Bolshevik Leninist spirit”, they called to sweep out the bu-

reaucrats, to put power back into the hands of the workers, and to bring

important issues like safety, housing, and health to the fore.17

This message resonated strongly with union members. Millions of

peasants had flocked to the cities during the first Five Year Plan (1928–32),

real wages had fallen by half due to uncontrolled inflation, and living and

——————

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid., 8–9.

T H E G R E A T S O V I E T P A R A D O X

155

working conditions were very difficult. In 1929, when the Party purged the

“rightists” and forced the unions to “face toward production”, they largely

abdicated defense of working class interests.18 Although VTsSPS leaders

were disingenuous in blaming accidents and poor living conditions on

“wrecking”, they were accurate in their assessment of the unions. The call

for revitalization was guaranteed to appeal directly to workers by linking

the hunt for enemies to a new workers’ democracy. It was quickly trans-

lated into action. Within less than three weeks, the CC plenum was fol-

lowed by a plenum of the VTsSPS, which was followed in turn by meet-

ings within individual unions at every level.

The VTsSPS Plenum

The VTsSPS held its VI Plenum in April 1937, its first since 1931. The

long hiatus figured prominently in Shvernik’s keynote address, which

charged that the unions had fallen apart after the purge of Tomskii and the

rightists in 1929. Shvernik, who had first floated the idea of union demo-

cracy, now vigorously promulgated the new campaign. He sharply criti-

cized union leaders for violating democratic principles, omitting elections

and entrenching themselves in posts without a popular mandate. Many

unions, in fact, did not have legally elected central, regional, or factory

committees.19 Officials were dismissive of the people they were supposed

to serve, “insensitive toward complaints”, and cavalier about safety rules,

labor laws, housing, and occupational health.20 Shvernik’s repeated invoca-

tions of workers’ rights were interspersed with references to wrecking,

“enemies of the people”, and loss of “class vigilance”. Union officials had

allowed enemies, Trotskyists, wreckers, and diversionists to flourish at

——————

18 The rightists were branded as “capitalist trade unionists” for suggesting that unions should defend workers’ interests against managers and the state. After they were purged, the unions’ main role was to encourage worker productivity. On living conditions and the wage crisis, see Fitzpatrick (1999, 40–66, 89–114), Goldman (2002) and Osokina (2001). On unions and workers in the 1930s, see Filtzer (1986); Murphy (2005) and Rossman (2005).

19 Each union was headed by a central committee, with regional (
oblast’
) committees at mid-level, factory and shop committees in the enterprises, and
profgrupy
, the smallest unit, at the base. Some unions also had district (
raion
) committees.

20 Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GARF), fond 5451, opis’ 21, delo 1, l. 68.

156

W E N D Y Z . G O L D M A N

every level.21 Many union leaders had already been arrested as “enemies of

the people”. Shvernik broadened the attack further to include those “politi-

cally blind, sluggish, and careless” union officials who failed to help the

NKVD in its hunt for enemies.22 He urged union officials to participate

actively in identifying and denouncing the enemies in their midst.

The delegates, prominent union and VTsSPS officials, listened carefully

to Shvernik’s speech. Attentive readers of the Party and union press, they

were not surprised by his message. Yet this was the first time they re-

sponded publicly, as a group, to the change in course. Their reactions,

initially defensive, spanned the gamut from fear to enthusiasm as they took

up the new slogans. In fact, the delegates’ responses foreshadowed the

range of reactions that would be replayed with growing intensity as the

campaign spread. Some took advantage of the new course to advance the

interests of their workers and expose conditions in the factories, some

scrambled to blame their superiors, others publicly distanced themselves

from union colleagues who had recently been arrested. Delegates fired

criticism in every possible direction, including at Shvernik himself. Not

even the head of the VTsSPS was off limits.23

N. V. Voronina, an older woman from Elektrozavod, a large Moscow

electrical factory, pressed the claims of her fellow women workers. A fac-

tory worker for almost forty years, Voronina understood conditions well.

Railing against everything from lack of ventilation in the shops to the re-

cent prohibition of abortion, she roundly criticized union officials for ig-

noring the plight of the very people they were supposed to be representing.

Although Voronina was uneducated, her strong commitment had brought

her to the attention of union and Party officials who appointed her to the

VTsSPS presidium in 1933. Yet Voronina was in many ways a token ap-

pointment, unsure of her role. She complained that no one ever told her

what to do. She had tried to meet with Shvernik, N. N. Evreinov, and

other VTsSPS leaders, but “was not able to have a proper conversation

with a single secretary”. Shvernik had visited her factory only once since