S-Space College of Humanities (인문대학) Institute for Russian, East European & Eurasian Studies (러시아문화권연구소) 러시아연구 (Russian Studies) 러시아연구 Volume 08 Number 1/2 (1998)
1930년대 소련에서의 "대협약(Big Deal)"의 성립과 그 수혜자들 - 노동돌격대, 스따하노프 노동자, 그리고 전문기술인들을 중심으로 -
The ‘Big Deal' and Its Beneficiaries in the Soviet Union during the 1930s: -The Udamiki, the Stakhanovites, and the Technical Intelligentsia-
- Issue Date
- 서울대학교 러시아연구소
- 러시아연구, Vol.8 No.1, pp. 259-285
- Vera Dunham argues that, after World War U, the Stalin regime made a
‘Big Deal’， an alliance with the managerial-professional social groups, such
as engineers, administrators, and managers in order to get help from them
to restore the prewar economic pace and the devastated country. The
regime provided them with various material privileges, i.e., housing, consumer
goods, luxuries and leisure time. Besides obtaining help for rebuilding
the country, the Stalin regime was able to secure political support from
those privileged groups by offering those privileges. Dunham defines the
interchange of the material incentives, and the support to the regime, as the
In fact, however, the ‘Big Dea1' did not emerge in the 1940s; rather, it
was a1ready formed in the early 1930s in the process of industria1ization.
The Sta1in regime urgently needed the labor force to carry out industria1ization.
Thus, the regime had to mobilize not only the mass of the working
class, especia11y industria1 workers, but a1so the technica1 intelligentsia.
However, it would be difficu1t for the regime to mobilize the workers, who
lived under deteriorated living conditions, and the technica1 intelligentsia,
who were attacked by specia1ist-baiting during the First-Five Year Plan. In addition, the 1eveling wage system contributed to the high rates of 1abor
tumover. In these circumstances, it wou1d have been impossib1e for the
regime to mobilize the worker and the technica1 intelligentsia without
offering any ‘carrot’. In 1931, by introducing the piece-rate system and by
offering monetary and materia1 privileges to those two socia1 groups, the
Sta1in regime was ab1e to mobilize them into the process of indus며a1ization.
In this context, the ‘Big Dea1' was a1ready formed in the ear1y 1930s.
Unlike Leon Trotsky, Milovan Dj ilas , and Dona1d Filtzer’s argument,
besides the Soviet e1ite, the workers was a1so a counterpart of the regime' s
a11iance and one of the main beneficiaries, rather than victim of the
reglme’s indus며a1ization po1icy. A1though on1y the shock workers and the
Stakhanovites were ab1e to enjoy various privileges among the workers, the
opportunity for joining those two privileged groups was φen to the entire
working class during the 1930s. In this sense, it is Quite p1ausib1e to consider
the workers as the object of the ‘Big Dea1' during this period.
The resu1t of the Sta1in regime’s mobilization po1icy was re1ative1y
successfu1 because the regime was ab1e to encourage the masses of the
workers to participate in ‘ soci떠ist competition’ by offering materia1 and
monetary incentives. Additiona11y, the policy of offering privileges contributed
to changing the privileged workers attitudes and behavior. The increased
soci머 status of the 1eading Stakhanovites 1ed them to aspire toward
cultured va1ues and behavior that they did not have.
However, the Stalin regime’s alliance with the workers cou1d not continue
beyond the 1930s because the prob1em of 1abor Quality began to be exposed
in the 1ate 1930s. A1though some leading Stakhanovites were promoted into
higher positions in industry, they cou1d not substitute for the role of the
technica1 intelligentsia. A1so, they had to overcome cultura1 deficits as illiteracy.
Finally, only the technica1 intelligentsia was ab1e to remain as the
partner of the Stalin regime a11iance throughout the 1940s.