Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:32:33.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Access to Communication Tools in Stalin’s Soviet Union*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Larissa Zakharova
Larissa Zakharova*
Affiliation:
Centre d’études des mondes russe, caucasien et centre-européen, EHESS
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article examines the status and the place of such means of interpersonal communication as mail, the telegraph, and the telephone in Soviet society under Stalin. Access to tools of communication created a certain hierarchy in the Soviet Union: the telephone was only accessible in large cities, whereas postal services remained limited across the countryside. As it was being implemented, the Soviet project of a communicating society proved to be full of disparities, ultimately centered on the city-dwelling elite. While the radial scheme of communications networks favored contact between the capital and the provinces, the geographical proximity of the regions did not facilitate communications between their inhabitants. The construction of long-distance networks of sociability was affected by the territorial dimensions of the country, varying access to tools of communication, weak technological development, and bureaucratic malfunctioning.

Type
Inequalities and Justice
Information
Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales - English Edition , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 357 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © Les Éditions de l’EHESS 2013

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Grégory Dufaud, Catherine Gousseff, Aleksandra Majstorac-Kobiljski, Nathalie Moine, and Sophie Tournon for carefully reading this article and for their invaluable advice.

References

1. Grossman, Vasily, Life and Fate, trans. Chandler, Robert (New York: New York Review of Books Classics, 2006), 445 Google Scholar.

2. Ibid.

3. On malfunctions in Soviet bureaucratic documents and the ways historians can deal with them, see Dufaud, Grégory, “Que faire des dysfonctionnements? Quelques observations sur l’écriture de l’histoire de l’Union soviétique,” A contrario 1, no. 17 (2012): 53–69 Google Scholar.

4. Turpin, Jennifer, Reinventing the Soviet Self: Media and Social Change in the Former Soviet Union (Westport: Praeger, 1995)Google Scholar; Brooks, Jeffrey, Thank You, Comrade Stalin! Soviet Public Culture from Revolution to Cold War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Goriaeva, Tat’iana, Radio Rossii. Politicheskii kontrol’ sovetskogo radioveshchaniia v 1920-1930-kh godakh (Moscow: ROSSPÈN, 2000)Google Scholar; Goriaeva, , “Velikaia kniga dnia...” Radio v SSSR (Moscow: ROSSPÈN, 2007)Google Scholar; Wolfe, Thomas C., Governing Soviet Journalism: The Press and the Socialist Person after Stalin (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Sumpf, Alexandre, Bolcheviks en campagne. Paysans et éducation politique dans la Russie des années 1920 (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2010)Google Scholar; and Roth-Ey, Kristin, Moscow Prime Time: How the Soviet Union Built the Media Empire that Lost the Cultural Cold War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

5. On long-distance interpersonal communications as spaces in which critical opinion takes shape, see Griesse, Malte, Communiquer, juger et agir sous Staline. La personne prise entre ses liens avec les proches et son rapport au système politico-idéologique (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011)Google Scholar.

6. On the competition between political and social uses of communication tools during the early Soviet years, see Zakharova, Larissa, “‘Le socialisme sans poste, télégraphe et machine est un mot vide de sens.’ Les bolcheviks en quête d’outils de communication (1917-1923),” Revue historique 660, no. 4 (2011): 853–73 Google Scholar.

7. Collection (fond, henceforth “f.”) 3527, inventory (opis’, henceforth “op.” or “per.”) 4, file (delo, henceforth “d.”) 116, page (list, henceforth “l.”) 4, Russian State Archives of the Economy (Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Ekonomiki, hereafter “RGAE”), Moscow.

8. In this respect, the Stalinist regime did not greatly differ from European countries, which—like France when it nationalized its postal service—modeled their networks on their administrative and political structures. Bertho, Catherine, ed., Histoire des télécommunications en France (Toulouse: Érès, 1984), 63–64 Google Scholar.

9. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 722, l. 1, RGAE, Moscow.

10. On this basis, exemplary workers—the Stakhanovites—were entitled to a higher standard of living.

11. Fitzpatrick, Sheila, Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 177 Google Scholar; Fitzpatrick, , Tear off the Masks! Identity and Imposture in Twentieth-Century Russia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; and Nérard, François-Xavier, Cinq pour cent de vérité. La dénonciation dans l’URSS de Staline, 1928-1941 (Paris: Tallandier, 2004)Google Scholar.

12. Changes in scale also obey a logic that is specific to technological change (a fact that is not particular to the USSR): while the advantage of the telegraph was to allow longdistance communication, the telephone first developed within cities. Bertho, Histoire des télécommunications, 52.

13. Psurtsev, Nikolai D., ed., Razvitie sviazi v SSSR, 1917-1967 (Moscow: Sviaz’, 1967), 50–57 Google Scholar.

14. F. 3527, op. 2, d. 275, ll. 163-171, RGAE, Moscow.

15. Psurtsev, Razvitie sviazi v SSSR, 69.

16. F. 3527, op. 2, d. 275, l. 109, RGAE, Moscow.

17. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 42, l. 407, RGAE, Moscow.

18. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 11, l. 15, RGAE, Moscow.

19. F. 3527, op. 2, d. 275, ll. 109-110, RGAE, Moscow.

20. Psurtsev, Razvitie sviazi v SSSR, 79-82 and 85.

21. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 41, l. 15, RGAE, Moscow.

22. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 82, l. 232, RGAE, Moscow.

23. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 42, ll. 127-28, RGAE, Moscow. Package fees were based not only on weight but also on distance (the difference ranged from 550 rubles for 400 km to 5,455 rubles for 10,000 km per pound—or funt, which was equivalent to 409.5 grams).

24. Ibid., p. 260.

25. On the social category of the byvshie and how they became lishency (deprived of civic rights), see Alexopoulos, Golfo, Stalin’s Outcasts: Aliens, Citizens, and the Soviet State, 1926-1936 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Depretto, Jean-Paul, Pour une histoire sociale du régime soviétique, 1918-1936 (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2001), 51–66 Google Scholar; Moine, Nathalie, “Peut-on être pauvre sans être un prolétaire? La privation de droits civiques dans un quartier de Moscou au tournant des années 1920-1930,” Le Mouvement social 196, no. 3 (2001): 89–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moine, , “Système des passeports, marginaux et marginalisation en URSS, 1932-1953,” Communisme 70/71 (2003): 87–108 Google Scholar; Chuikina, Sofia, Dvorianskaia pamiat’: byvshie v sovetskom gorode—Leningrad, 1920-30 gody (Saint Petersburg: EUSPB Press, 2006)Google Scholar; and Chuikina, Sofia and Martin, Monique de Saint, “La noblesse russe à l’épreuve de la révolution d’Octobre. Représentations et reconversions,” Vingtième siècle. Revue d’histoire 99, no. 3 (2008): 104–28 Google Scholar.

26. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 42, l. 244, RGAE, Moscow.

27. On the 1921 famine and its effects, see Il’iukhov, Aleksandr, Zhizn’ v èpokhu peremen: material’noe polozhenie gorodskikh zhitelei v gody revoliutsii i grazhdanskoi voiny (Moscow: ROSSPÈN, 2007), 166–83 Google Scholar.

28. On the eradication of illiteracy (likbez), see Sumpf, Bolcheviks en campagne; Clark, Charles E., Uprooting Otherness: The Literacy Campaign in NEP-Era Russia (Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

29. F. 1220, op. 1, d. 4, ll. 2-4, and 47, National Archives of the Republic of Tatarstan, Kazan (Natsional’nyi Arkhiv Respubliki Tatarstan, hereafter “NART”).

30. Ibid., ll. 5, 11, 14, 57, and 61.

31. Ibid., l. 48.

32. F. 1220, op. 1, d. 59, ll. 3v-4, NART, Kazan.

33. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 116, l. 5, RGAE, Moscow.

34. Ibid., l. 6.

35. Ibid., l. 6.

36. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 166, ll. 1 and 6, RGAE, Moscow.

37. Ibid., ll. 7-8.

38. F. 3527, op. 2, d. 160a, l. 37, RGAE, Moscow.

39. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 166, l. 1, RGAE, Moscow.

40. While 51% of the population over the age of ten was illiterate in 1926, by 1939, 89.7% of the RSFSR could read and write: see Clark, Uprooting Otherness, 72-73 and 109.

41. Figes, Orlando, The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin’s Russia (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007)Google Scholar.

42. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 722, l. 8, RGAE, Moscow.

43. Ibid., l. 10a.

44. Ibid., l. 11.

45. Ibid., l. 1.

46. Ibid., l. 4.

47. On the development of mail-order commerce in France, see Munck, Philippe, Manufrance, nous accusons (Paris: Éditions de La Vie ouvrière, 1993)Google Scholar.

48. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 116, l. 5 and d. 722, l. 10a, RGAE, Moscow. See note 33 in this article.

49. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 722, l. 3, RGAE, Moscow.

50. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 711, l. 115, RGAE, Moscow.

51. F. 3527, op. 8, d. 55, l. 2, RGAE, Moscow.

52. Ibid., ll. 2 and 59. On telephone density in the United States and Europe during the interwar period, see Griset, Pascal, Les révolutions de la communication, XIXe-XXe siècle (Paris: Hachette, 1991), 20 Google Scholar. He gives the following numbers for the eve of World War II: 15.8 for the United States and 2.7 for the entire European continent (13.6 for Sweden, 5.3 for Germany, 7 for Great Britain, and 3.8 for France). Catherine Bertho and Patrice Carré note that telephone density between French cities was very uneven in 1938: 15 in Paris, 9 in Lille and Bordeaux, and 7 in Nice. “In fact, interwar telephone density follows the map of the French economy rather faithfully: infrastructure is superior in the wealthier and more industrialized north and east, whereas telephones are scarcer in the rural south and west. The only exceptions were several resort towns: Nice, Biarritz, and Saint-Malo—Dinard, for example, were among the first regions to be automated.” Bertho, Catherine and Carré, Patrice A., “Le téléphone de Clémenceau à Mistinguett, 1914-1939,” in Bertho, , Histoire des télécommunications, 134 Google Scholar.

53. By comparison, the number of telephone subscribers in the United States multiplied by two and a half between 1911 and 1928, whereas it tripled in Europe over the same period. In 1933, the 1929 crisis led to a 13.5% decline in the number of subscribers in the United States (some 16.7 million). On the eve of World War I, the United States crossed the threshold of twenty million subscribers. Griset, Les révolutions de la communication, 19-20.

54. F. 3527, op. 8, d. 55, l. 58, RGAE, Moscow.

55. Ibid., ll. 32 and 58.

56. Spatial and social inequalities were a fundamental characteristic of the Soviet model of development: this can be witnessed in the realm of food supplies and, more broadly, distribution, as well as in the policies of control and repression carried out through the passport system. See: Osokina, Elena, Our Daily Bread: Socialist Distribution and the Art of Survival in Stalin’s Russia, 1927-1941 (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 2001)Google Scholar; Hessler, Julie, A Social History of Soviet Trade: Trade Policy, Retail Practices, and Consumption, 1917-1953 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; and Moine, , “Le système des passeports à l’époque stalinienne. De la purge des grandes villes au morcellement du territoire, 1932-1953,” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 50, no. 1 (2003): 145–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57. F. 3527, op. 8, d. 55, l. 6, RGAE, Moscow.

58. Ibid., ll. 4-5. On the disparities between Moscow neighborhoods in the thirties, see Essaïan, Élisabeth, “ Kvartal : création d’une nouvelle forme urbaine et d’un nouvel usage d’habitat collectif,” in Comment vivre ensemble. Prototypes of Idiorrhythmical Conglomerates and Shared Spaces, eds. Viganò, Paola and Pellegrini, Paola (Venice: Officina edizioni, 2006), 37–55 Google Scholar; and Moine, Nathalie, “Pouvoir bolchevique et classes populaires : la mesure de privation de droits civiques à Moscou au tournant des années 1930,” Cahiers de l’IHTP 35 (1996): 141–59 Google Scholar.

59. Bertho, Histoire des télécommunications, 64.

60. On the plan to rebuild Moscow, see Essaïan, Élisabeth and Pozner, Valérie, “La reconstruction de Moscou, 1935-1940,” Le Moniteur architecture 162 (2006): 98–103 Google Scholar.

61. F. 3527, op. 8, d. 55, ll. 3-4, RGAE, Moscow.

62. Ibid., l. 12.

63. On actants, see Akrich, Madeleine, Callon, Michel, and Latour, Bruno, Sociologie de la traduction. Textes fondateurs (Paris: École des Mines, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64. F. 3527, op. 8, d. 55, l. 5, RGAE, Moscow.

65. Ibid., l. 6.

66. See the various documents relating to the wiretapping of elites in the archives of the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History, Moscow (Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Noveishei Istorii): f. 89, per. 18, d. 27, l. 1; d. 42, ll. 1-17; d. 49, l. 1; d. 114, ll. 1-13; per. 37, d. 44, ll. 1-3; d. 42, ll. 1-5; f. 5, op. 30, d. 412, ll. 18-21.

67. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 1576, l. 3, RGAE, Moscow.

68. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 722, l. 3, RGAE, Moscow.

69. This thinking is consistent with the basic characteristics of the relationship between the predatory state and the rural world in the USSR. See: Viola, Lynne, Peasant Rebels Under Stalin: Collectivization and the Culture of Peasant Resistance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Lévesque, Jean, “‘Into the Gray Zone’: Sham Peasants and the Limits of the Kolkhoz Order in the Post-War Russian Village,” in Late Stalinist Russia: Society Between Reconstruction and Reinvention, ed. Fürst, Juliane (London: Routledge, 2006), 103–20 Google Scholar.

70. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 1576, ll. 27-28, RGAE, Moscow.

71. Ibid., ll. 4-6.

72. Ibid., l. 29.

73. On evacuees and their social relations, see Manley, Rebecca, To the Tashkent Station: Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

74. F. 3527, op. 7, d. 849, l. 38, RGAE, Moscow.

75. On the 1946-1947 famine in the Soviet Union, which was caused by cereal exports (among other reasons), see Zima, Veniamin F., Golod v SSSR 1946-1947 godov: proiskhozhdenie i posledstviia (Moscow: Institut Rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 1996)Google Scholar.

76. F. 3527, op. 7, d. 849, l. 1, RGAE, Moscow.

77. Ibid., ll. 2-3.

78. Ibid., l. 3. The purpose of the reform was to reduce the sums of money the Soviets had accumulated during World War II. As a result they were divided by three, falling from 43.6 to 14 billion rubles: see Popov, Vasily P., Èkonomicheskaia politika Sovetskogo gosudarstva. 1946-1953 gg. (Moscow/Tambov: TGTU, 2000)Google Scholar.

79. F. 3527, op. 7, d. 849, l. 9, RGAE, Moscow.

80. Ibid., ll. 29-30.

81. Ibid., l. 35.

82. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 2050, l. 34, RGAE, Moscow.

83. Ibid., ll. 196-197.

84. Ibid., ll. 24, 33, and 196.

85. On worksites, free workers crossed paths with Gulag prisoners, among whom critical opinions were often widespread: see Werth, Nicolas, “Déplacés spéciaux et ‘colons de travail’ dans la société stalinienne,” Vingtième siècle. Revue d’histoire 54, no. 2 (1997): 34–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 2050, ll. 196-197, RGAE, Moscow.

87. Ibid., l. 149.

88. Ibid., l. 148.

89. Ibid., ll. 1-3, 6, 10 and 143-146.

90. Ibid., l. 148.

91. V. Eristov (chief engineer of the Sredasgidrostroi), “Stalinskii plan pokoreniia Karakumov—v deistvii,” Izvestiia, September 12, 1951; F. 3527, op. 4, d. 2050, ll. 1-3, 6, 10, and 143-146, RGAE, Moscow.

92. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 711, l. 2, RGAE, Moscow.

93. Ibid., l. 40.

94. Ibid., ll. 35, 37 and 40-41.

95. Ibid., l. 42.

96. Ibid., l. 41.

97. Ibid.

98. Ibid., l. 42.

99. Ibid., l. 43.

100. Ibid., l. 41.

101. Ibid., l. 42.

102. Ibid., l. 37.

103. Ibid., ll. 36-38.

104. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 757, ll. 2-3, RGAE, Moscow.

105. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 711, ll. 111v and 112v, RGAE, Moscow.

106. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 943, l. 18, RGAE, Moscow.

107. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 2497a, l. 53, RGAE, Moscow.

108. Ibid.

109. Ibid., l. 54.

110. F. 3527, op. 4, d. 2497a, l. 55, RGAE, Moscow.

111. Ibid.

112. On power technologies, see Lemieux, Cyril, Mauvaise presse. Une sociologie compréhensive du travail journalistique et de ses critiques (Paris: Métailié, 2000), 445 Google Scholar.

113. See Pool, Ithiel de Sola, ed., The Social Impact of the Telephone (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Carpenter, Marie, La bataille des télécoms. Vers une France numérique (Paris: Économica, 2011)Google Scholar.

114. Boettinger, Henry M., “Our Sixth-and-a-Half Sense,” in Pool, Sola, The Social Impact of the Telephone, 200–207, here 203Google Scholar.

115. Ahvenainen, Jorma, The Far Eastern Telegraphs: The History of Telegraphic Communications Between the Far East, Europe and America Before the First World War (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1981)Google Scholar; Shahvar, Soli, “Tribes and Telegraphs in Lower Iraq: The Muntafiq and the Baghdad-Basrah Telegraph Line of 1863-65,” Middle Eastern Studies 39, no. 1 (2003): 89–116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rubin, Michael, “The Telegraph and Frontier Politics: Modernization and the Demarcation of Iran’s Borders,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East 18, no. 2 (1998): 59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Headrick, Daniel R., The Invisible Weapon: Telecommunications and International Politics, 1851-1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

116. Eriksson, Kai, “On Communication in the Modern Age: Taylorism and Beyond,” Journal for Cultural Research 11, no. 2 (2007): 125–39 Google Scholar.