Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:58:22.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Initiative and Independence of Soviet Plant Management1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

David Granick
David Granick*
Affiliation:
Fisk University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the United States, there is widespread acceptance of a stereotype of Soviet industry according to which all initiative and ideas stem from the top. The formulation and enforcement of the national Plans are conceived of as leaving little room for independent action by such lower officials as those in the managements of individual plants. From this stereotype, two conclusions are commonly drawn: one, that industry is operated as a gigantic bureaucracy with rigid centralization and stifling red tape; two, that the entire industrial potential of the country is single-mindedly geared to the precise goals set by the top authorities.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , October 1951 , pp. 191 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The research for this article was done as part of a larger study under a fellowship from the Social Science Research Council.

References

2 Cf. Prikaz of the Commissariat of Heavy Industry (NKTP), No. 245 (February 26, 1935); Za Industrializaciju (Z.I.), February 27, 1935, p. 1.

3 Cf. Industrializacija (Ind), September 17, 1938, p. 2; September 18, 1938, p. 1.

4 Cf. Mašinostroenie (Maš), December 30, 1938, p. 2.

5 Cf. Z.I., August 24, 1935, p. 2.

6 Prikaz NKTP, No. 32 (January 8, 1934); Z.I., January 9, 1934, p. 1.

7 Cf. Prikaz of the Ministry of Construction Materials USSR, No. 23, summarized in Ind, February 10, 1940, p. 3.

8 Z.I., April 29, 1935, p. 2.

9 Z.I., September 4, 1935, p. 3.

10 Z.I., May 6, 1935, p. 3.

11 Ind, July 5, 1940, p. 2; July 7, 1940, p. 1.

12 Maš, October 14, 1939, p. 2.

13 Cf. Z.I., March 4, 1937, p. 2; August 17, 1937, p. 2.

14 The electrical plant Kujbyšev, Z.I., August 5, 1937, p. 2.

15 Resolution of December 25, 1935, Z.I., December 26, 1935, p. 1.

16 Maš, May 11, 1939, p. 2.

17 Loc. cit.

18 Cf. Z.I., March 14, 1936, p. 2.

19 Cf. A. Kurskij, Socialističeskoe planirovanie narodnogo khozjajstva SSSR (Moscow, 1945), pp. 34-35- Also L. Maizenberg, “O khozjajstvennom plane,“ Planovoe Khozjajstvo, No. 10 (1940), p. 15.

20 Z.I., May 22, 1936, p. 3.

21 Postanovlenie CIK and SNK SSSR, No. 57/131 (February 18, 1931), Sobranie zakonov i rasporjaženij raboče-krest'janskogo pravitel'stva SSSR, 1931, article 109. This law remained in force and was still referred to in 1944 in Graždanskoe pravo, ed. M. M. Agarkov and D. M. Genkin (Moscow, 1944), I, 374.

22 Z.I., June 17, 1934, p. 1.

23 Loc. cit.

24 Editorial thesis formulated on the basis of decisions of the State Arbitration Tribunal attached to the Council of Ministers USSR, presented in “Arbitraznaja praktika,” Arbitraž, No. 2 (1938), pp. 26-28.

25 S. Bratus’ and M. El'evič, “Sbyti i otvetstvennost’ po dogovoram,” Bjulleten' Gosarbitraža, No. 8 (1935), pp. 7-8; lnd, July 26, 1938, p. 3; “Khronika: v gosplana SSSR,” Planovoe Khozjajstvo, No. 5 (1938), p. 169.

26 Cf. G. A. Dlugač, “Snabzenie tjažëloj promyšlennosti čerez otraslevye snaby,“ Snabzenie i Skladskoe Khozjajstvo Prompredprijatij, No. 1 (1936), p. 22.

27 Maš, December 9, 1938, p. 2.

28 Cf. Z.I., August 12, 1937, p. 1.

29 Cf. Maš, December 11, 1938, p. 2.

30 In February and March, 1935, there was a whole series of such letters in Z.l. with regard to wage fund violations. (Cf. the article by Director Kovarskij in the issue of February 28, p. 3, and the one by Director žbakov on March 26, 1935, p. 3.) Such brazen confessions by top management continued even during the heart of the purge period, as witness the article by the chief of the Production- Planning Sector of the Magnitogorsk Stalin plant in lnd, September 17, 1937, p. 3. In the post-purge period, such articles as that of Director Akopov in Maš, December 22, 1938, p. 2, maintained the tradition.

31 Cf. Ind, September 17, 1937, p. 3. Prikaz NKTP No. 502 (June 7, 1937), Bjulleten’ finansovogo i khozjajswennogo zakonodatel'stva, No. 18 (1937).

32 Ibid.; Z.I., September 2, 1937, pp. 2-3.

33 Maš, January 29, 1939, p. 4.

34 Maš, July 24, 1938, p. 2.

35 Z.I., February 2, 1935, p. 3.

36 Reported in Z.I. during 1935.

37 Z.I., May 11, 1935, p. 1.

38 Prikaz NKTP, No. 1015, Z.I., August 30, 1935, p. 1.

39 Z.I., March 28, 1934, p. 3.

40 Z.I., June 6, 1937, p. 1.

41 Lead editorial in Z.7., June 29, 1937, p. 1.

42 Z.I., June 29, 1937, p. 1.

43 Maš, June 1, 1938, p. 2.

44 Z.I., May 8, 1934, p. 3.

45 Lead editorial in Z.I., April 23, 1935, p. 1.

46 Prikaz NKTP, No. 245 (February 26, 1935), Z.I., February 27, 1935, p. 1.

47 Director D'jakonov of the Gorki Molotov Auto-Tractor plant, in Z.I., March 18, 1935, p. 3.

48 Cf. Z.7., December 10, 1934, p. 1; Maš, September 22, 1938, p. 1; Smekhov, B., “Planirovanie remonta osnovnykh fondov,” Planovoe Khozjajstvo, No. 10 (1940), pp. 50–61.Google Scholar

49 Smekhov, loc. cit.

50 Cf. the article of Director N. Egorov in Pravda, September 26, 1940, p. 3.

51 Cf. the article of four Leningrad directors in Pravda, September 10, 1940, p. 2.

52 Bienstock, , Schwarz, , and Yugow, , Management in Russian Industry and Agriculture (Oxford University Press, 1944), pp. 9–12.Google Scholar

53 Cf. the lead editorial in Z.I., November 12, 1934, p. 1, and the lead editorial in Z.I., March 18, 1937, p. 1.

54 Resolution of the December, 1935, Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik), Z.I., December 26, 1935, p. 1.