<< start of article
At the same time, when within the walls of the Communist Academy and the State Planning Committee there are heated debates about the future of the socialist cities; when the pages of periodicals are full of bold assumptions about the degree of "liberation of the working population of the country from the shackles of the household"; when in the working collectives of large cities the popularization of the Sabsovich version of the socialization of everyday life is carried out, and at the meetings of various commissions, the preparation of the legislative formulation of its provisions is taking place; in parallel, in the depths of the party-state apparatus, a completely different attitude is formed towards the proposals of L. Sabsovich and Y. Larin and towards the content of the discussion about the socialization of everyday life and the new socialist settlement. And a completely different document is maturing. True, so far only in the form of a draft resolution, but, on the other hand, a resolution of one of the main organs of the party leadership of the country - the all-powerful Central Committee of the CPSU (b).
The archival materials contain two texts of the draft resolution (both are not dated). One of them, called “Project. The resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on the immediate tasks of the socialist restructuring of everyday life "is most likely the initial draft resolution, the development of which was entrusted to the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) at a meeting on February 26, 1930, Comrade Goltsman, Tolmachev, Saltanov, Kuznetsov, Leplevsky. Probably, the text of the resolution was passed on to Smirnov in working order and edited by him (or, perhaps, he himself wrote it), and then, before the meeting of the commission on March 31, it was sent out to Comrades. Voronova, Yenukidze, Goltsman, Artyukhina, Kuznetsov, Uglanov, Milyutin, Leplevsky, Tolmachev, Khalatov with the following accompanying note: “On behalf of Comrade. Smirnov, a draft resolution on OB (Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) - MM) - on the restructuring of everyday life - was sent in its edition. The meeting of the commission will take place on 31 March at 2 pm in the office of Comrade Smirnov. Pom. Secretary of the Central Committee N. Ashchukin "[27].
Unfortunately, neither the transcript nor the minutes of the March 31 meeting have survived. As for the text of the draft resolution, it is an interim text of the future resolution “On the restructuring of everyday life”. The text is divided into three parts. The first is a 1.5-page introduction to the reconstruction of everyday life, which interprets it as "the most important task of the dictatorship of the proletariat" [28]. This part in the final text of the decision will be reduced to the first two paragraphs. The second part is critical, defaming N. Milyutin, Y. Larin, L. Sabsovich. The third is a decisive one, consisting of 13 points proposed for inclusion in the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).
The second and third parts, during the final editing, and perhaps as a result of the meeting on March 31, are undergoing strong changes. In particular, the surname of N. Milyutin, who had previously been declared one of the main culprits of the noisy scale of the company for the restructuring of everyday life and the discussion of social resettlement, disappears from the final text of the resolution. That is why, in the draft resolution of the Central Committee, his name was in the first place, before the names of Larin and Sabsovich: “The Central Committee notes that along with the planned growth of the mass movement for a socialist life, there are extremely unfounded, semi-fantastic, and therefore extremely harmful attempts of individual comrades (N A. Milyutin, Yu. Larin, Sabsovich, etc.) "in one leap" jump over those obstacles on the way to the socialist reconstruction of life, which are rooted, on the one hand, in the economic and cultural backwardness of the country, and on the other hand, in the need for the present moment of maximum concentration of all resources on the fastest industrialization to create real material prerequisites for a radical alteration of everyday life …”[29].
It is curious that N. A. Milyutin is mentioned in the draft resolution with both initials, Yu. Larin with one (which is understandable, since “Yu. Larin” is the pseudonym of Mikhail (Ichil-Mikhl) Zalmanovich Lurie), and Sabsovich has no name at all.
The fact that the name of Milyutin was excluded from the latest version of the resolution indicates that he somehow managed to justify himself before the top party leadership and prove (perhaps not without the help of A. Smirnov) that he was not the main culprit in the distortion of the general the line of the party in the question of forming the habitat of millions of unknown creators of the country's military-industrial potential.
The operative part of the draft resolution also underwent major changes - out of 13 paragraphs in the final version, only 6 remained, and none of them exactly repeated the original version. These 13 points are:
“… the Central Committee decides:
1. Suggest that the STO, within 15 days, give instructions on the rules for the construction of new cities, settlements and individual houses for workers. These instructions should provide for public services in the everyday life of the working people [30] (laundries, kitchens, children's rooms, etc.) in accordance with the achievements of the country's economic development. These rules should also proceed from the fact that the amount of living space projected according to the plan for 1930 should in no case be reduced, and its average cost should not be increased.
2. To instruct the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR to find additional funds for housing construction this year at the expense of savings on Tsustrakh or other sources in the amount of at least 20 million rubles.
3. Instruct the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR to take all measures to ensure housing construction for the current year with building materials and the necessary labor force.
4. Instruct the Council of People's Commissars of the Union republics to take the necessary measures to expand and qualitatively improve the work of communal enterprises (water supply, baths, laundries, etc.).
5. To propose to the Supreme Council of the National Economy of the USSR to ensure, starting from 29/30, the expansion of the production of items for servicing the everyday life of the working people (electricity, gas, water, steam, etc.). To propose to the Supreme Council of the National Economy of the USSR to ensure the production of equipment for mechanized laundries, kitchen factories and public canteens under construction.
6. To oblige the People's Commissariat of Trade, Tsentrosoyuz and Narpit to develop measures to expand the public catering of workers, to take the most urgent measures to improve the quality of food in public canteens and the fullest possible coverage of public catering not only for workers, but also for their families.
7. To propose to the Tsentrosoyuz together with the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions to take measures to strengthen the cultural and everyday work of the cooperatives and to take strict measures against the misuse of cultural and household funds.
8. Instruct the People's Commissariat of Trade and Tsentrosobz to organize the delivery of food to household communes, dormitories and collectives according to a single sampling book, as well as the delivery of food to the home.
9. Bearing in mind the existing discrepancy in financing of various household enterprises by economic agencies and trade-union organizations, instruct the NKT of the USSR, together with trade-union organizations and cooperatives, to take urgent measures to streamline this business and increase funding for the restructuring of everyday life.
10. Propose the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions and the Council of People's Commissars of the Union republics to take, together with the relevant trade-union organizations, measures to increase the number of playgrounds, nurseries, gardens, as well as rest homes for adult workers (including for the use of weekends) and other means of cultural recreation (tourism, etc.) etc.).
11. To entrust the Commission on the restructuring of everyday life under the NK RFKI of the USSR with the supervision of the implementation of this resolution.
12. The Central Committee draws special attention to the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions and all trade-union organizations of the USSR to the fact that work to improve the living conditions of the working people and reorganize it on a socialist basis, along with the leadership of socialist competition, is becoming the most important part of trade union work. The Central Committee notes that the CNT organs in the center and at the local level should play a special practical role in the work on restructuring the life of the working people and that therefore they should include in the plan of their further work the solution of tasks for the socialist restructuring of the life of the working people.
13. To instruct the People's Commissariat of Education to develop a system of training personnel necessary for public catering, raising children, cultural recreation and for other sectors of the restructuring of everyday life”[31].
The reader can compare them with the six points of the final part of the Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks dated May 16, 1930 "On work on the reconstruction of everyday life", which is fully presented in the first part of the article.
The comparison shows that everything that could become a guarantee of real investment of state forces and funds in improving the comfort of the living environment in existing and being built settlements has disappeared from the draft resolution. The state categorically does not want to take care of creating a new way of life, refuses to guarantee the allocation of funds to improve the everyday life of workers - everything that, directly or indirectly, could be a specific officially proclaimed "state obligation" on this issue, is excluded from the draft resolution: "to find additional funds for housing construction in the amount of at least 20 million rubles; to provide housing construction for the current year with building materials and the necessary labor force; oblige the People's Commissariat of Trade, Tsentrosoyuz and Narpit to develop measures to expand public catering for workers, to take the most urgent measures to improve the quality of food in public canteens and the fullest possible coverage of public catering not only for workers, but also for their families; To instruct the People's Commissariat of Trade and Tsentrosobz to organize the supply of food to household communes, hostels and collectives according to a single intake book, as well as the delivery of food to home; to take measures to increase the number of playgrounds, nurseries, gardens, as well as rest homes; to develop a system of personnel training necessary for public catering, raising children, cultural recreation and for other branches of the restructuring of everyday life”, etc.
It remains completely unclear why the members of the commission A. P. Smirnov so took up arms against Yu. Larin. He was not the only one who took part in the discussion. Why was it that his speeches and his activity, which differed little from the speeches and activity of other participants, were so sharply condemned? Moreover, if in the mid-1920s. Since he was a fairly large figure, by the end of the 1920s he had significantly lost his political weight and influence. Perhaps the attacks on him were a reflection of the war that the Stalinist entourage waged with the right opposition and was due to the fact that Yu. Larin was N. Bukharin's son-in-law. Or perhaps the anger of the Soviet political elite was caused by the position of Yu. Larin, which he repeatedly expressed in public speeches, and outlined in writing in the article "Collectivization of everyday life in existing cities", published in April 1930 in the journal "Revolution and Culture" (No. 7) in the midst of a discussion about social resettlement. The article was a transcript of a report by Yu. Larin in the Communist Academy on February 22, 1930, in which he preached such methods of introducing a "collective life" that could "incorrectly" orient ordinary communists and Komsomol members in relation to the government's policy of shaping living conditions and the activities of the Stalinist nomenclature and cause their dissatisfaction: “The actual obligation (of socialized life - the authors) can be applied only for two groups. First, there are over 2 million party members and Komsomol members in the cities of the USSR. Together with dependents, this will constitute a population of over 4 million, i.e. more than 10% of the total population of cities (30 million people). For this group, the actual obligation to collectivize everyday life due to the pressure of party public opinion can be carried out without hesitation. This will immediately create a solid core around which the collectivization of everyday life in cities can go further, relying on the experience and example of an advanced core. Extension to all communists and Komsomol members will make this experience and example widespread enough that it does not pass unnoticed. The second group of the urban population, for which certain elements of collectivization of everyday life can be carried out, if not in 1930, then later, in fact, without fail, is the population of newly settled houses that are yet to be built. From the very beginning, such houses can be designed from the future 1931 with shared kitchens, laundries, nurseries, kindergartens (almost all of the houses for 1930 have already been designed and it is unlikely that it will be possible to make many amendments in time). Whoever does not need it, who does not want it, can stay in old houses. And the living space in new houses should be transferred, first of all, to those who agree to the collectivization of cooking, washing, caring for small children”[32].
Larin had a penchant for "bold", utopian projects, in particular, he developed and tried to implement a project to resettle all the Jews of the Soviet Union to the Crimea for farming. Two villages in northern Crimea were even named after Larin - Larino and Larindorf. But the idea of obliging all party members to forcibly abandon individual apartments was not just a curious propaganda appeal, it turned out (most likely completely unintentionally) against the Stalinist policy of distributing welfare as a means of encouraging service to the party and the state. Against the background of this policy, ideas like Larin's could not cause anything but indignation at the top.
Yuri Larin's proposal to design only socialized housing, starting in 1931, completely contradicted the policy of the higher authorities to use housing as a means of stimulating and coercing people to work and serve the state. This policy presupposed not reducing the typology of Soviet dwellings to only one type - communal houses with a socialized way of life, but, on the contrary, the deployment of a rather broad typology of dwellings, within which the bulk of the working population had to live in "good, cheap, comfortable barracks", insignificant some of the technical and other specialists are in communal apartments, and the party and Soviet leadership is in a more comfortable dwelling (moreover, the higher one is in separate apartments or even in detached houses) [33].
It was during this period that the very provisions of the state housing policy were ripening in the leadership of the country, which would be voiced at the June plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1931 in L. Kaganovich's report - the government focuses on designing rich houses for the authorities on the main thoroughfares of existing cities and social cities-new buildings. The plenum, which will proclaim the ensemble design of the central squares and streets as houses for the authorities, will take place only a year later, but already now, in the early 1930s. The tendency to award housing to those who selflessly serve the authorities, to “mark” their social and official status with housing, is ripening quite clearly.
Yu Larin's calls to subject all communists and Komsomol members to the “obligatory collectivization of everyday life” and to forcibly relocate them to “houses with … common kitchens, laundries, nurseries, kindergartens,” against the background of this policy, may well cause sharp irritation and discontent at the highest and even middle levels party leadership. Yuri Larin's appeals directly contradict the Stalinist policy of life support of the nomenklatura, hinder its implementation and harm its correct perception of this policy by the population.
It can be assumed that Y. Larin was familiarized with the text of the draft resolution of the commission of A. P. Smirnov dated March 31 (and possibly with a transcript of the meeting), in which he was named as one of the main culprits. The basis for such a statement is provided by the letter from Yu. Larin to A. P. Smirnov, dated April 5, 1930. It has a subtitle - "Materials for the draft resolution of the Central Committee Commission on the collectivization of everyday life" [34]. In this letter, Y. Larin, seeking to clear himself of the accusations, names his personal, not too friendly relationship with A. Goltsman as the main reason, referring to his long-standing conflict with him over the organization of household communes. It is in this that Larin sees the motives of Holtzman's criticism directed at him. Yu. Larin points to the inconsistency of Holtzman's position in matters of full or partial redistribution of the salaries of commune members, which, according to him, in fact, was the reason for the unfounded accusations against him [35].
Larin points out the bias of Holtzman's attitude to the content side of his position: “When my comrade. Holtsman, does he know about all my speeches and on what basis did he mention me in the draft resolution he wrote - Comrade Holtsman replied that he did not take into account my reports, articles and theses, but with the fact that in the minutes of the subcommittee of the commission comrade … Rudzutaka did not stipulate my disagreement with the theses of Comrade. Sabsovich”[36].
Yu. Larin also explains the situation with his participation in drafting the resolution of the SRC commission on the transition to "uninterrupted" (ten-day continuous working week with a "floating" day off - MM) and in relation to the content of the draft resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR: “According to the instructions of the SRC commission Continuously, on January 28, I introduced into it the "Draft Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on the improvement and collectivization of consumer services." This project, by the way, how easy it is to check by acquaintance with its content, does not contain either "consistently socialist cities", or the removal of children to special "children's towns", or one hundred percent socialization and household communes, or the distribution of husbands and wives in different rooms, etc. Instead, in my project there were various prosaic proposals on improving the work of baths and laundries, on the procedure for purchasing food by household collectives, on hot breakfasts in schools and on improving the organization of business in canteens, on dacha rest, etc. " [37].
Y. Larin also explains the situation with the development of the draft resolution of the Rudzutak commission, disavowing Sabsovich's point of view: “In addition to my draft" on improvement ", another draft on the collectivization of everyday life was submitted to the Rudzutak commission by Comrade. Sabsovich, who really contained an immediate complete socialization in the new "consistently socialist cities", the removal of children to special children's towns, etc. things, most of which are likely to come true later, but for which, according to our means and other circumstances, the time had not yet come in 1930. On February 13, the commission heard two reports from Comrade Sabsovich and mine, according to the theses presented by us each separately, and adopted a resolution. It is clear from this resolution that neither I nor the other participants had to mark in the protocol their agreement or disagreement with Comrade Sabsovich's theses, since it was decided only to bring these issues to the discussion of the masses, which does not mean agreement, but only the need to work out the issue … it is advisable to put for discussion the masses one consolidated document with all the proposals, more compact than the long theses of both … and comrade Sabsovich, for a discussion in some consolidated material and, as it were, anticipating misunderstandings that might arise in someone, after that, in my report at the Communist Academy on February 22 [38], at the end of my report, I made a special statement about my disagreement with Comrade Sabsovich with a request to put it in the minutes, and in the minutes of the meeting there is a special resolution on this matter”[39]. Yu. Larin hopes very much to divert accusations from himself and correct the commission's decision in his favor.
Letter from Yu. Larin addressed to A. P. Smirnov, his attempts to justify himself and his explanations about not being involved in excesses in calls for the collectivization of everyday life did not give any result. In the archival materials, also without specifying the date, another document is stored, entitled: “Project. On work on the reconstruction of everyday life”[40], which is an almost exact prototype of the final text of the resolution, and in which the name of Larin remains on the list of“guilty”, along with the name of Sabsovich. Most likely, this is the last version of the text, especially since on its title page by the hand of A. P. Smirnov is inscribed: “To the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. I present for approval the draft resolution "On work on the reconstruction of everyday life" adopted by the commission. A. Smirnov "[41].
It can be assumed that it was this text that was considered at the meeting of the Organizing Bureau on the restructuring of everyday life, held on May 16, 1930 [42].
The draft resolution proposed by the commission was adopted by the Organizing Bureau with the following resolution: "The draft resolution proposed by the commission should be approved, entrusting the final editing to Comrade Smirnov" [43].
The irritated tone of the resolution "On the restructuring of everyday life" is caused by the fear that the propaganda of a socialized life created (or at least is able to create) among the population groundless hopes that the state will provide them with a problem-free everyday existence. But the authorities did not at all strive for this. She was interested, first of all, in making people work selflessly without exception. And everyday problems played into her hands, since, entrusting the plant administrations and the leadership of Soviet institutions with the care of her employees, she gave them the mechanisms of influencing the laboring masses, among which, one of the most powerful was the provision of a roof over their heads. Moving into housing, evicting from housing, improving the living conditions for the foremost workers or worsening in relation to loafers and parasites, providing normal or increased rations and a narrowed or expanded range of services, the government very effectively influenced people. At the expense of "everyday life" she got the opportunity to regulate "labor behavior".
The government categorically does not want to socialize everyday life and create an equalizing service system at the expense of the state. Therefore, the decree “On work on the reconstruction of everyday life” officially rejects the idea of a socialized life, rejects it as a “harmful utopian undertaking”, rejects any proposals “to re-plan existing cities and rebuild new ones solely at the expense of the state”, threateningly calls them “bias” [44].
The most remarkable thing in the decree "On work on the restructuring of everyday life" is a seemingly insignificant terminological substitution - the phrase "socialized everyday life" in the decree was replaced by a completely different one: "public service". At the time of the release of the decree, three systems of supplying the population with goods and products are simultaneously functioning in the country: a) socialized life (in the form of initiatives of the population, independently united into household communes), b) a distribution system, c) public services.
The distribution system in the USSR set a fundamentally different character of trade turnover than in the capitalist countries. Note that here it is more correct to speak not about "commodity circulation", but about "product turnover" and "material turnover", since "commodity" as a unit of specific processes of "commodity exchange" with the use of "money" was also absent in the conceptual and theoretical ideas of the creators of distribution system, and in practical steps to create it. For the same thing or service, representatives of different categories of the Soviet clothing supply system paid completely different amounts, sometimes differing dozens of times. Likewise, in closed canteens - “grocery distributors”, food was offered at prices that varied many times depending on the rank and official status of the person served.
The NEP period expanded the commodity market, but did not abolish the principles of the distribution system. The government continued to provide the working population in kind (distribution) with food and basic necessities, and although the commodity-market relations revived during this period caused a transition in certain areas of activity to cash payments [45], the state distribution of "food and consumer goods", carried out through the administration of Soviet enterprises and institutions [46], this did not replace. Moreover, the volume of rationed state distribution has increased dramatically and has become truly all-encompassing. Especially since 1929, when the waves of famine that were rolling in forced the authorities in the territories and the leadership of individual industries to introduce the rationing system everywhere.
“Public service” differed both from the distribution system and from socialized life in that it returned goods and money to everyday life. The authorities redirected their efforts to the formation of a system of services that should have been bought with money earned by their own labor, and not received free of charge according to the order of enterprises. But this orientation in the early 1930s. it was just maturing, and the "socialized way of life" contradicted it by placing on the shoulders of the state all the burden of worries about the daily life of the country's population.
The irritation in tone on the part of the Orgburo in its reaction to the discussion about social resettlement is also explained by the oversight that occurred in relation to the lower echelon of government power. Moreover, to such a key body as the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. It is not known what was the reason for the adoption of the relevant decisions of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, but in full accordance with the calls of L. Sabsovich, on February 25, 1930, he decided: to facilitate the involvement of women in industrial and social work, recognize the need to develop measures to ensure the creation of household collectives to socialize the service of household needs”[47].
It should be noted that such orders were not, as they were later called, "utopian running ahead." These were reasonable proposals, really taking into account the traditional character of the everyday life of the former peasant population and capable of alleviating the everyday hardships of food and housing crises for people.
But they fundamentally contradicted the organizational and managerial strategy that the top party leadership during this period worked out in relation to new-built social cities, existing cities and, ultimately, the entire urban population of the country. They contradicted with regard to granting communes special rights to own and dispose of housing - the concentration of all rights and resources in the hands of factory management was unacceptable - the government could not allow the communes to have independent financial capabilities and administrative powers. They contradicted with regard to the priority supply of communes with food - the equalizing nature of the commune's existence opposed the hierarchical principle of the structure of the state distribution system. They also contradicted with regard to the stability of "labor collectives" - this form of co-organization of people, on which the party-administrative governing bodies relied, as it turned out, as a result of the turnover, very soon ceased to be "labor", and remained only "everyday" and, thus, deprived the power in the person of the administration of an industrial enterprise or a Soviet institution of the possibility of any organizational and managerial influence on employees.
The discrepancy between the political orientation of the nationwide programs, formed, on the one hand, in the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and, on the other hand, legislative initiatives carried out by other government bodies, in particular, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, was unacceptable within the framework of a single centralized machine of totalitarian government. The decree "On work on the reconstruction of everyday life" decisively corrected this mistake.
The decree "On the restructuring of everyday life" is considered by architectural historiography as one of the key party orders in the history of Soviet architecture. It is believed that this was the beginning of the curtailment of the activities of the architectural avant-garde, culminating in the publication on April 23, 1932 of the Resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations" [48], which prohibited the independent activity of any creative associations. The decree "On the restructuring of everyday life" is widely cited, it is pointed out, it is quoted, literally, in all scientific works and textbooks devoted to this period. While making a reference to the primary source - the newspaper "Pravda" No. 146, where on May 29 on page 5 it was published. With reference to "Pravda" he is quoted by the magazine "Contemporary Architecture" No. 1-2 for 1930 [49] (while, we note, erroneously indicating No. 145, and not No. 146). With reference to "Pravda" he is quoted by Vigdaria Efraimovna Khazanova in her unique fundamental work "Soviet architecture of the first five-year plan. Problems of the city of the future”[50].
In both cases, as in the final text of the draft resolution, “individual comrades” are named as the main culprits (with the exception of N. Milyutin, who inexplicably avoided public censure): “Sabsovich, partly Larin and others”. The same formulation is given in the book by N. A. Milyutin "Sotsgorod" [51], where the text of the resolution is also quoted (albeit without pointing to the source). This formulation wanders from edition to edition.
And here the most amazing thing begins!
It turns out that in the text of the resolution “On the restructuring of everyday life” published in Pravda, it is written differently - not “Sabsovich, partly Larin”, but “Yu. Larin, Sabsovich and others."
It would seem, what's the difference? Well, they mixed up, well, rearranged the names. But, we know that it was absolutely unthinkable to confuse the sequence of phrases, words or even letters, and even more so, surnames in the text of the resolution of the Central Committee of the Party, and even more so to rearrange. Changing a simple comma in a party-government decree, which did not even threaten to distort the meaning, was already a grave crime during this period, promising terrible punishment to the culprit, and only a madman could independently change places of names. But such were not allowed to party documents and government papers.
This mysterious, enigmatic fact of distortion of the text of the party decree, which is key to the history of Soviet architecture, seems incredible and extremely intriguing. How did this become possible? Vigdaria Efraimovna could not have looked into the pages of the primary source - the newspaper "Pravda", having trusted the text published in "Contemporary Architecture". But the editorial board of the journal "Contemporary Architecture", releasing a little over a month later, at the very end of June - the beginning of July 1930, a double issue of the journal (No. 1-2), could not but cite the text of the resolution strictly according to the original source. She had to do it. And she could not be mistaken in any way. And Nikolai Alexandrovich Milyutin could not afford to arbitrarily distort the party document. What happened? When and why did Sabsovich and Larin change places in the text of the resolution? Who dared to change the decision of the almighty Central Committee of the CPSU (b)?
The answer to this question is extremely important for understanding the functioning of the Soviet mechanism for managing the sphere of architectural and urban planning activities. To understand how the party decisions were made, addressed, among other things, to architects. How the personnel policy was implemented and how the decisions worked out in Staraya Square changed the creative direction of Soviet architecture. These questions are waiting for their researcher.
So what happened?
With the release of the decree "On the restructuring of everyday life", the public discussion ends, but its participants continue to prove their case. So, for example, M. Okhitovich speaks at the dispute on November 16, 1930 in the editorial office of the newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda". N. Milyutin, in spite of the real threat of public censure that had just passed him, published in the second half of 1930 his now famous book Sotsgorod. The story of Yu. Larin does not end with the release of the decree. Realizing how dangerous public condemnation of his activities is for his career and accustomed to fighting to the end, he immediately sent a written protest to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik) after the publication and publication of the resolution “On the restructuring of everyday life” in Pravda. This protest is considered at a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on June 15, 1930, i.e. almost exactly one month after the adoption by the Regional Bureau of the resolution "On the restructuring of everyday life" [52]. There is no transcript of this meeting. The Politburo decides to refer the issue to the organ where it was originally worked out - to the Orgburo.
The Orgburo meets for its meeting the next day - June 16, day after day exactly one month after the adoption of the resolution against which Yu. Larin filed his protest [53]. The content of this meeting is also unknown - no transcript has been found. It has not yet been possible to find the text of the decision. But, most likely, during the proceedings at the Orgburo Larin manages to prove his "innocence" - to absolve himself of charges of distorting the party line. True, not completely, but only partially. Because he remains on the list of those who make "extremely harmful attempts … to jump over the obstacles on the way to the socialist reorganization of everyday life" in one leap ". But it turns out to be in second place, after L. Sabsovich, who moves to the first. Moreover, the surname Larina acquires a “softening” formulation “in part”.
So, instead of the initial draft of the text of the resolution: "… extremely harmful, attempts of individual comrades (N. A. Milyutin, Yu. Larin, Sabsovich, etc.) to jump" in one leap "…" [54], instead of the officially published text: " … extremely harmful, attempts by individual comrades (Yu. Larin, Sabsovich, etc.) … "[55] in the final edition, another wording appears:" … extremely harmful attempts of individual comrades (Sabsovich, partly Larin, etc.) … ". After that, the text of the resolution begins to exist and is widely quoted already in this new, revised form.
How, through what mechanism of distribution of documents, a month after the adoption and publication of the official text of the resolution, the new, revised text is circulated and disseminated? How does he reach the leaders of creative groups, government officials and other officials? How, in general, do the decisions of the highest authorities, which are not published in the general press (and the second text of the decision was not published anywhere at that time), go to the authorities, into the hands of those bosses who should be guided by them? How quickly do architectural officials of different levels receive directives from above and through what management links do they transmit these directives to executors at lower levels of the administrative apparatus? How fully, consistently and accurately do you manage to convey them? These questions are still waiting to be answered.
But in the history of the prohibition of discussion about social resettlement, in addition to these issues, there are still many other ambiguities. It is not clear how N. Milyutin managed to avoid public exposure of the party as the main culprit. There is no answer to the question about the fate of L. Sabsovich. As well as to the question about the fate of another main instigator of the discussion, not mentioned in the resolution, the deurbanist M. Okhitovich. What happened to them and their ideas after the release of the decree "On the restructuring of everyday life"? The dramatic fate of Mikhail Okhitovich is slightly more open. But more on that in a separate article.
<< start of article
NOTES
[27] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 851. - 232 p., L. 55.
[28] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 851. - 232 p., L. 56-60.
[29] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 851. - 232 p., L.57.
[30] In the text, the words "public services for the everyday life of workers" are highlighted, underlined in red pencil - MM.
[31] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 851. - 232 p., L. 58-60.
[32] Revolution and culture. No. 7. 1930. P. 54–55
[33] Meerovich M. G. Typology of mass dwellings of new-built social cities of the 1920s-1930s. [electronic resource] / M. G. Meerovich // Architecton: news of universities - 2010. - # 31. 3.0 pp - access mode: https://archvuz.ru/numbers/2010_3/012 - in Russian. lang.
[34] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 861. - 194 p., L. 42-45-rev.
[35] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 861. - 194 p., L. 42-rev.
[36] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 861. - 194 p., L. 44.
[37] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 861. - 194 p., L. 44-44-rev.
[38] This refers to the report on the collectivization of everyday life, made by Yu. Larin within the walls of the Communist Academy on February 22, 1930. Later, the report was presented in the article "Collectivization of everyday life in existing cities" (Larin Yu. Collectivization of everyday life in existing cities // Revolution and culture. 1930. No. 7. p. 54-62).
[39] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 861. - 194 p., L. 44-ob-45.
[40] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 851. - 232 p., L. 52-54.
[41] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 851. - 232 p., L. 52.
[42] The meeting was attended by: members of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b): comrades. Bubnov, Gamarnik, Dogadov, Kubyak, Moskvin, Smirnov, Uglanov; OB candidate member: Comrade Schmidt; members of the Central Committee of the CPSU: Comrades. Zhukov, Chudov, Schwartz; candidates for members of the Central Committee: comrades. Krinitsky, Leonov, Ryutin; from the Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party: comrade t. Kalashnikov - Korotkov, Royzenman, Shkiryatov; heads of departments of the Central Committee: comrades. Bulatov, Kaminsky, Savelyev, Samsonov, Stetsky; deputy heads of departments of the Central Committee: comrades. Zimin, Katsenelenbogen, Meerson, Nizovtsev, Rosenthal, Pshenitsyn; responsible instructors of the Central Committee: com. Amosov, Kasparov, Popok, Clothespin; Assistant Secretaries of the Central Committee: Comrades Ashchukin, Levin, Mogilny; from "Pravda": com. Maltsev, Popov.
[43] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 851. - 232 p., L. 1.
[44] On the work on the restructuring of everyday life … Decree. op. P. 118.
[45] SU of the RSFSR. 1921. No. 59. Art. 394; SU of the RSFSR. 1921. No. 76. Art. 617
[46] SU of the RSFSR. 1921. No. 62. Art. 453; SU of the RSFSR. 1921. No. 67. Art. 513.
[47] Quoted. by Larin Yu. Collectivization of everyday life in existing cities // Revolution and culture. 1930. No. 7. P. 56.
[48] Party building. 1932. No. 9., p.62.
[49] Modern architecture. 1930. No. 1-2., P. 3
[50] V. E. Khazanova Soviet architecture of the first five-year plan. … Decree. cit., p. 105.
[51] Milyutin N. A. The problem of building socialist cities. The main issues of planning and construction of populated areas. State publishing house. M.-L., 1930.-- 84 p., P. 82.
[52] The meeting is attended by: members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b): comrades. Voroshilov, Kalinin, Kuibyshev, Molotov, Rudzutak, Rykov, Stalin; candidate members of the Politburo: Comrades Kaganovich, Mikoyan, Syrtsov; members of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b): comrades. Akulov, Badaev, Dogadov, Zhukov, Kviring, Krzhizhanovsky, Kubyak, Lobov, Lomov, Menzhinsky, Rukhimovich, Smirnov, Stetsky, Strizhevsky, Sulimov, Uglavnov, Ukhanov, Schmidt: members of the presidium of the Central Control Commission: comrade t. Yenukidze, Ilyin, Lebed, Zhdanov, Kaminsky, Kiselev, Krinitsky, Lokatskov, Mezhlauk, Ordzhonikidze, Pavlunovsky, Rozengolts, Solts, Shkiryatov, Yakovlev, Yanson, Yaroslavsky.
[53] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 860. - 193 p., L.5.
[54] RGASPI F.17, Op.113., D. 851. - 232 p., L.57.
[55] True. No. 146 of May 29, 1930, p. 5.
<< start of article
