The meeting of the history of social welfare and social history has been one of the most productive encounters in recent years. It has become an object of particular interest for historians, and social and political scientists. Therefore, an attempt to analyse the system of social welfare in a specific historical context is entirely welcome. Dorena Caroli's book is a remarkable example of in-depth research into the system of social welfare in the Soviet Union in the period between the two world wars, a period in the development of the Soviet state that is not fully represented in English and French literature. Caroli's book demonstrates a careful study of the archives of the former Soviet Union and a deep understanding of the political and social factors influencing the system of social welfare. Caroli proposes a complex approach based on political and institutional history on one hand, and social history and knowledge of cultural processes on the other.
A few words must be said about the author's choice of the key expression “protection sociale”. Caroli notes that in European historiography “generally no distinction may be found between the expressions welfare state, Etat providence, Stato sociale, social insurance, and social assistance” (p. 19). When choosing a relevant expression for describing the Soviet system of social welfare, Caroli takes the historical context into consideration. She has chosen the expression protection sociale in French (social'noe obespechenie in Russian), which was born in the Soviet Union with the adoption of a law protecting workers from industrial accidents, whereas in Europe this notion took hold later.
The author explains the genesis of social welfare in European countries by noting the fact that the social insurance system was invented by Bismarck in Germany in order to protect and at the same time to control labour movements. Thus, the state provided workers and their families with social assistance in case of accidents, illness, disability, and unemployment. Bismarck's model formed the basis of European systems of social welfare (for example, the British welfare state) as well as the social welfare of the Russian tsarist monarchy, which in turn constituted the basis of the Soviet social welfare system. Nevertheless, despite the common roots, the expression “welfare state” is used by English-speaking authors mostly to describe the period after World War II, while Caroli emphasizes the importance of the expression protection sociale when speaking about the 1920s and 1930s in the Soviet Union. Caroli argues that it is paradoxical to use the expression welfare state or Etat du bien-etre in regard to the Soviet government's transformation of the social assistance system developed by the tsarist monarchy before the Revolution, and then the violent regime of Joseph Stalin. In fact, one of the aims of this research is to demonstrate the reasons why the Soviet system of social welfare could not provide workers with the security and social assistance promised by the October Revolution, and why the Communist Party limited the state's intervention in social welfare, which eventually led to poverty and the social stratification of Soviet society. The relationship between the state and the people in this historical period implied so many contradictions and perplexities that it is more relevant to use the expression protection sociale rather than welfare state.
Making good use of analysis of labour laws in the 1920s–1930s, statistics of social insurance offices, and a thorough study of relations between individuals and social insurance offices, and social insurance offices and medical institutions, Caroli demonstrates a “double” methodology which combines macro- and micro-historical approaches. This productive combination of methods and levels of observation makes it possible to grasp general tendencies and larger processes, and at the same time understand the micro-level problems of individuals. Along with general arguments, Caroli provides case studies: social welfare in the automobile industry; pensions for the revolutionaries of 1905, partisans, and soldiers of the Red Army; and the development of Stalin's school, taken as an illustration of the development of secondary education. The case study on Stalin's school, for instance, not only demonstrates the Soviet state's contribution to the system of secondary education and its role in the social life of a Soviet school, but also illuminates the “social anthropology” of a new Soviet society and its values.
What is important in Caroli's research is that it also benefits from individual narratives. The author provides a series of personal documents containing the demands and complaints of people of various ages addressed to the Soviet authorities and directly to Nadezhda K. Krupskaya, who was Lenin's widow and Deputy Commissar for Education. These personal documents provide insight into the everyday lives of workers, peasants, and their families, i.e. their needs, problems, hopes, and sorrows. This qualitative material serves as a kind of justification of the raw facts and statistical information in the book. In looking at the personal documents, Caroli poses a series of curious methodological problems concerning the linguistic abilities of the petitioners, and their cultural and educational backgrounds, although she does not devote too much attention to them in her study. For instance, she notes that it is not always possible to define the level of literacy of a petitioner, because the writing and editing of petition letters by a third person was a widespread practice in the Soviet Union. The third person could be a parent or a writer skilful in this genre (p. 31). Caroli also sees these personal documents as rather representative data (exceptionnellement normaux in French, eccezionalmente normali in Italian), demonstrating the extent to which individuals belonging to different social groups were equalized in the face of a lack of social assistance and legal aid. Writing a petition letter or complaint was the only means by which people could insist that their rights be protected. The analysis of personal documentation therefore makes a significant contribution to the study of the new collective identity being constructed in the 1920s–1930s.
The five parts of the book, arranged in chronological order, deal with a “double methodology” of macro-historical and micro-historical analysis. Chapter 1 looks at the origins and evolution of the tsarist social welfare system in the context of industrialization after the great Russian reforms of 1864 to 1917. Caroli focuses on two aspects: implementation of social insurance offices, protecting workers from illness in Moscow and St Petersburg, and the foundation of social assistance offices for school teachers. The development of the social welfare system was quite limited in this period because of economic crisis and war. The reforms did not noticeably change the everyday lives of workers in the cities.
Chapter 2 examines the Bolsheviks’ reforms of social welfare. The author highlights ideological attitudes between 1918 and 1920 that to a large extent formed the Soviet system of social insurance and shaped its key elements. Here, Caroli provides a case study of the AMO automobile plant in Moscow.
Chapter 3 analyses the reforms in social insurance during 1922–1927. Caroli carefully examines three reforms that constituted the foundations of social insurance and the system for distribution of funds on centralized and local levels. The author makes a penetrating analysis of the Bolsheviks’ reasons for fostering social stratification by offering benefits to a few social groups while depriving other groups of social assistance. In fact, the privileged target groups were high-level specialists such as qualified workers, school teachers, and a few categories of bureaucrats, whereas peasants, who formed the majority that was developing the economy of the Soviet Union, had almost no access to benefits. Furthermore, school teachers were considered to be a special group, as they were responsible for rearing a new Soviet generation by promoting revolutionary values and principles.
Chapter 4 discusses the results of two five-year plans that launched a new system of social welfare in industries. A corporate system of control was introduced in different branches of industry during 1928–1932. Caroli carefully traces how priority fields of industry were being formed and how social assistance in the case of illness, accidents, and unemployment was being rigidly controlled by the Soviet authorities. In order to provide a clear picture of the transformation, the author shows the way the evolution of Soviet social insurance was mediated by the local practices of social insurance offices in Moscow and the ZiS automobile plant. The concluding Chapter 5 is meant to concentrate on micro-historical analysis by focusing on the everyday dimension of the interactions between common people and the Soviet authorities. The above-mentioned case studies and personal documents are presented here.
This work by Dorena Caroli is a rewarding example of careful research into a particular period in social history. One of its main advantages is a combination of macro- and micro-historical methodologies, such as statistical analysis and work with archives and personal documents. The book could serve as a guide through Soviet history, pointing out not only the aspects of a complex social welfare system but also the cultural and political peculiarities of the emerging Soviet society. It will be of interest to those who deal with the history of the Soviet Union, or anyone interested in an informed social analysis of a specific historical period.
