Sukhova Olga Aleksandrovna, Doctor of historical sciences, professor, sub-department of Russian history, local history and history teaching methods, Penza State University (40 Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia), firstname.lastname@example.org
Background. Topicality of various aspects of resistance to Stalin’s regime is determined by a necessity of obtaining new knowledge about the nature and characteristics of Stalinism, as well as studying admissibility and evaluation of the efficiency of coercion methods’ limits in the process of socio-political interaction in general context. The purpose of the study is the typology of forms and the study of the nature of social opposition to the new model of social engineering.
Materials and methods. Validity of the research results was achieved by introduction of new historical sources into the scientific use, represented by record keeping documentation submitted by the USPD (materials of holding p.-54 – “Penza Regional Committee of the CPSU (b)” of the State archive of Penza region), as well as by the analysis of historiographical sources on various problems of the history of Stalinism. The methodology of the article relies on the use of the concept of social constructionist theory and construction of social reality. At the same time the most important concept is a social practice that allows to consider various forms of resistance (sabotage, wrecking, etc.) through opposition/adaptation to political tension during radical transformations of the NEP. In turn, the scientific definition of the “sabotage” phenomenon should be considered as a method of indirect reconstruction of the essential characteristics of the political regime. A special attention was devoted to conditions of formation and maintenance of social understanding of the nature of power and problems of social and political interaction.
Results. The factors and features of manifestation of social practices, marked as “wrecking”, were learned, the conjugation of this concept and terms “kulaks”, “counter-revolutionary sabotage”, “terrorist act” was identified. Specific historical information that reflects the scale of “wrecking” in agriculture in the country and in the territory of Penza region was analyzed.
Conclusions. Based on the analysis of documentary and historiographical sources we conclude about a random shaping of the ideological concept of “wrecking” that didn’t reflect the real situation in the agrarian sector of the economy, and was mostly used not for labeling of social contradictions in the mass consciousness, but for creation of a unified and simplified system of solution management for local authorities.
sabotage, social resistance, government and society, Stalinism, repression, party-state management in 1920–1930
1. Fitspatrik Sh. Stalinskie krest'yane. Sotsial'naya istoriya Sovetskoy Rossii v 30-e gody: derevnya [Peasants of the Stalin era. Social history of Soviet Russia in 1930s: rural area]. Moscow: ROSSPEN: Fond Pervogo Prezidenta Rossii B. N. El'tsina, 2008, 422 p.
2. Akhiezer A. S. Rossiya: kritika istoricheskogo opyta (Sotsiokul'turnaya dinamika Rossii) [Russia: historical experience critics (Sociocultural dynamics of Russia)]. Novosibirsk: Sibirskiy khronograf, 1997, vol. I, 805 p.
3. Sukhova O. A. Istoriya stalinizma: krest'yanstvo i vlast': materialy Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. (g. Ekaterinburg, 29 sentyabrya – 2 oktyabrya 2010 g.) [History of Stalinism: peasants and the authority: proceedings of the International scientific conference (Ekaterinburg, 29th September – 2nd October 2010)]. Moscow: ROSSPEN: Fond Pervogo Prezidenta Rossii B. N. El'tsina, 2010, pp. 358–360.
4. Gosudarstvennyy arkhiv Rossiyskoy Federatsii [The State Archive of the Russian Federation]. F. 3316. Op. 41. D. 154.
5. Babashkin V. V. Stalinizm i krest'yanstvo: sb. nauch. st. i materialov kruglykh stolov i zasedaniy teoreticheskogo seminara «Krest'yanskiy vopros v otechestvennoy i mirovoy istorii» [Stalinism and peasants: proceedings of round tables and meetings of the theoreticals eminar “Peasantry issue in national and world history”]. Moscow: Izd-vo Ippolitova, 2014, pp. 38–48.
6. Ugolovnyy kodeks RSFSR redaktsii 1926 g. (s izmeneniyami po sostoyaniyu na 1 marta 1957 g.) [The Criminal code of RSFSR of the 1926 edition (revised, as of 1st March 1957)]. Moscow: Gosyurizdat, 1957. Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/901757374 (accessed 2015, November 15).
7. Gosudarstvennyy arkhiv Penzenskoy oblasti (GAPO) [The State Archive of Penza Region]. F.54. Op.1. D.117.
8. GAPO. F. 54. Op. 1. D. 338.
9. Viola L. Krest'yanskiy bunt v epokhu Stalina: Kollektivizatsiya i kul'tura krest'yanskogo soprotivleniya [Peasant revolt in the Stalin era: Collectivization and peasant resistance culture]. Moscow: ROSSPEN: Fond Pervogo Prezidenta Rossii B. N. El'tsina, 2010, 367 p.
10. Dobronozhenko G. F. Izvestiya Komi nauchnogo tsentra UrO RAN [Proceedings of Komi scientific center of RAS]. Syktyvkar, 2012, iss. 1 (9), pp. 119–124. Available at: http://elibrary.ru/download/83370492.pdf (accessed 2015, November 15).
11. Khlevnyuk O. V. Khozyain. Stalin i utverzhdenie stalinskoy diktatury [The Master. Stalin and consolidation of Stalin’s dictatorship]. Moscow: ROSSPEN: Fond Pervogo Prezidenta Rossii B. N. El'tsina, 2010, 479 p.
12. Vlasov V. A., Tishkina A. V. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Povolzhskiy region. Gumanitarnye nauki [University proceedings. Volga region. Humanities]. 2014, no. 3 (31), pp. 58–66.