****** - Verified Buyer
4.5
In this study of the postwar Stalin-era (dubbed Late Stalinism or “High Stalinism” by scholars), or probably one of the first studies of that era made in the post-Cold War era, Donald Filtzer outlines the standard of living that Soviet workers and peasants had in the immediate postwar era under Stalin. Stating that the regime faced momentous tasks of rebuilding the country, and simultaneously raise the already shattered standard of living, the Soviet government used it to reconsolidate their socialist system across the country as means of reconstruction and preparation for the upcoming Cold War with the US. The book is more or less organized chronologically, within the contents of every individual chapter. Filtzer spends much need time discussing the more important aspects of Soviet life such as the Soviet workforce in general, access to food & the end of wartime rationing, housing & healthcare, workplace laws, and the workplace itself. To say that life was hard from 1945-1952 can be considered an understatement. Damages in World War II have thrown the standard of living off-balance. Food distribution was initially unable to keep up with demand (combining with a bad harvest in 1946-1947), resulting in a famine. Housing, already in bad shape prior to WWII, became much worse thanks to the westernmost ruined cities in need of repairs, thus neglecting the housing of other cities that needed maintenance. The war itself caused massive upheavals within Soviet societies and in the workplace. Because of that, Soviet authorities needed to enforce already strict wartime laws in order to maintain order within the country. Such laws gave penalties for workers being late to their jobs (which was already a given due to the destruction of transportation in the cities), jail time for illegally quitting the job or stealing from the workplace. Yet, due to how strict such laws were, they were hardly enforced by the police or the secret police (but prosecutions were made regardless). However, by 1948, wartime rationing was lifted and as the years went by, those wartime labor laws were abolished altogether. It could have been safe to say that by 1950, life in the Soviet Union was getting better, albeit slowly and steadily. It would only take until after Stalin’s death for a significant rise in the standard of living to be truly reflected among the population. Filtzer, unfortunately, does not give Stalin nor the Soviet government credit for setting the stage for the future rise; even though in his own work and in government documents acknowledged that major change was required to move on. Filtzer largely uses primary sources in discussing the quality of life that Soviet workers had during that era as well as a select few secondary sources to help supplement the information. The author does state that there had hardly been any serious studies of Late Stalinism prior to this book’s publication, especially ones that utilize primary sources. It would make sense why some of the information feels rather dated or just going into pure speculation. Because of that, it creates serious flaws into the study. One example would be Filtzer completely blaming Stalin and the Soviet government for causing the 1946-1947 famine. Later research on the famine, thanks to those by Stephen Wheatcroft, have determined that the famine was not because of the Soviet government, even though some of their policies did not help alleviate the famine (such as establishing policies that eventually would end wartime rationing and shipping food to other countries that were in a worse position than the USSR). The famine was caused by both an incredibly bad harvest due to a rare weather phenomenon (even documents from Great Britain recorded such strange weather patterns) and the destruction of farmland caused by the Nazi invasion. There were also several instances of Filtzer making statements that do not have citations accompanying them. One statement was claiming that standards of living fell in the 1930s. No citation was given, and research made after the book’s publication (especially Robert C. Allen’s Farm to Factory) proves that statement to be incorrect. Other unsourced accusations include Stalin being fearful of his own society, strikes being forbidden for the majority of the Soviet Union’s existence, workers not having a say in the worker’s state, and even stating that Stalinism was not socialism (is Donald Filtzer a Trotskyist?). It is interesting that such accusations can be either backed up or proven wrong by: looking through Stalin’s own writings (he even prepared a text in 1952 outlining problems and solutions in the Soviet economy!), Soviet laws that discuss the option to strike, and Soviet economic data that demonstrates that the Soviet economy was growing (Allen does demonstratably prove that such data, however flawed, is genuine and no second pair of data exists). Either that is flawed research on Filtzer’s behalf or lousy research. Even if the accusations stated above were true and within archives, should there have been a citation regardless? It would only just proves that Filtzer’s citations are inconsistent. There is still something to learn when reading Soviet Workers and Late Stalinism, but the serious flaws within the book can seriously destroy its’ reliability. Some of the accusations can be believable, postwar life was incredibly difficult after all, but serious research within Late Stalinism is still required. Filtzer does acknowledge this, and apparently he might have improved upon this book in his later study of the era, The Hazards of Urban Life. Whether or not that book is better than this one, I have yet to find out. If it is, then Soviet Workers and Late Stalinism is potentially useless.
