Letters of Siberians to the power in the conditions of the New Economic Policy

The article considers letters of the New Economic Policy period, addressed by Siberians to different power authorities from party cells to the Central Committee of RCP(b)-AUCP(b) and the USSR Sovnarkom. Most of letters have information about people's attitude toward power, about the degree of their involvement in the political process, political views and values. In the beginning of the 1920s, one of the biggest problems for most of the Siberian population was the problem of political self-identification. The major part of applications for membership in RCP(b) or for withdrawal from RCP(b) showed the application authors' loyalty and devotion to the regime. At the same time, letters with criticism were an example that membership in the ruling party did not guarantee political adaptation. Both RCP(b) members and non-party people resented the sharp change in policy and the roistering of the local authorities. In the documents of 1923-1925, attention was paid to social, material and domestic problems. Intellectuals, philistines, wealthy farmers asked the power to return their nationalized property, to provide financial support when they felt changes in policy. In the second half of the 1920s, the situation changed again. The practice of deprivation of electoral rights, the dissolution of NEP caused complaints. Totally, letters became evidence of political maladjustment not only of individuals, but also of social groups. However, the authority of the supreme power remained high enough. Young people who grew under the influence of Soviet propaganda sincerely believed in the correctness of the Soviet regime. Their letters showed that this population could easily adapt to the changing policy. What is more, soon young people were to be loyal supporters of the Stalinist regime. Generally, letters of the NEP years from Siberians to the power show two different trends: successful integration in the Soviet system of one part of the population and rapid maladjustment of the other part. It is concluded that the widely used opportunity to appeal to various authorities of public prevented the development of the second trend. It kept the behavior of individuals within the existing rules. Every appeal to power, no matter how critical it was, became a tacit recognition of the authority and legitimacy of the Soviet regime.

Keywords

Authors

References