I was talking to a friend actually, we were chatting about China’s market economy and how USSR approach of only having state industry failed to deliver economic development in the civilian sector. And he pointed how it’s basically all Khrushchev’s fault.
Honestly, Khrushchev killing the artels is one of the clearest examples of how ideology and bureaucracy can strangle a good thing. Stalin developed a whole sector of worker-owned cooperatives making everything from furniture to clothes. They were actually responsive, filled gaps the state sector ignored, and paid their members decently.
Khrushchev was trying to purify the economy after Stalin. To him and the party purists, the artels were a ideological stain. They were a leftover from the NEP days, a form of petty bourgeois activity. Real socialism, in their minds, meant everything owned by the state, not by groups of workers themselves.
But it wasn’t just dogma because the state factory bosses hated them too. The artels competed for materials and skilled workers, and they were often more efficient. Their success made state sector look bad. So you had this alliance of ideologues who wanted purity and bureaucrats who wanted no competition.
Khrushchev was also big on giant, modern industries. He saw these small, flexible artels as backwards. He wanted everything big, centralized, and under the thumb of Gosplan. So he crushed them to make the economy look more like his vision of a modern superpower.
I’ve just thought up a follow up question: given what you said, would you say Krushchev is an example of left deviation or a right deviation from Stalin (or maybe neither)?
(I have always thought of leaders after Stalin as a general trend of right deviation till Gorbachev who then just capitulated to capital with his final act but now I am thinking it is not so straight forward)
I would argue that it was neither. It was a deviation towards far less competent leadership. In my opinion, the main lesson of USSR is that you really have to make sure there are strong selection mechanisms within the system that ensure competent people rise to the top. This is where China does a far better job incidentally. I did a deep dive on that here if you’re interested https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/rethinking-governance-through-outcomes
I was talking to a friend actually, we were chatting about China’s market economy and how USSR approach of only having state industry failed to deliver economic development in the civilian sector. And he pointed how it’s basically all Khrushchev’s fault.
Thanks for explaining (I asked just in case there may be a new book/article/resource for me to consider!)
Would you know the material conditions that led to shutting down of Artels? Was there a greater interest it was a threat to?
Honestly, Khrushchev killing the artels is one of the clearest examples of how ideology and bureaucracy can strangle a good thing. Stalin developed a whole sector of worker-owned cooperatives making everything from furniture to clothes. They were actually responsive, filled gaps the state sector ignored, and paid their members decently.
Khrushchev was trying to purify the economy after Stalin. To him and the party purists, the artels were a ideological stain. They were a leftover from the NEP days, a form of petty bourgeois activity. Real socialism, in their minds, meant everything owned by the state, not by groups of workers themselves.
But it wasn’t just dogma because the state factory bosses hated them too. The artels competed for materials and skilled workers, and they were often more efficient. Their success made state sector look bad. So you had this alliance of ideologues who wanted purity and bureaucrats who wanted no competition.
Khrushchev was also big on giant, modern industries. He saw these small, flexible artels as backwards. He wanted everything big, centralized, and under the thumb of Gosplan. So he crushed them to make the economy look more like his vision of a modern superpower.
I’ve just thought up a follow up question: given what you said, would you say Krushchev is an example of left deviation or a right deviation from Stalin (or maybe neither)?
(I have always thought of leaders after Stalin as a general trend of right deviation till Gorbachev who then just capitulated to capital with his final act but now I am thinking it is not so straight forward)
I would argue that it was neither. It was a deviation towards far less competent leadership. In my opinion, the main lesson of USSR is that you really have to make sure there are strong selection mechanisms within the system that ensure competent people rise to the top. This is where China does a far better job incidentally. I did a deep dive on that here if you’re interested https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/rethinking-governance-through-outcomes
Thanks again! Will add that one too to my reading list
Thank you so much for this insight