2005 年 114 巻 8 号 p. 1329-1361
This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the Universal Labor Service (ULS; February 1920-April 1921) in Russia. Though the system functioned as a basis for the economic reconstruction policy of the period, hitherto it had been given only brief mention in the research literature. From the beginning of the First World War, the imperial government and various socialists had sought to implement a universal labor service in Russia. After the civil war, during the first months of 1920, Trotsky had finally implemented the system. For him it was not only a method for the maximum utilization of labor, but also for realizing such ideological aims of the Communist Party as propagation of collectivist labor morality and engagement of the masses in the administration of the state economy. ULS was set up immediately by administrative departments, such as the People's Commissariat for Labor. Coordination of the activities of the departments ran badly, however, and the system did not function smoothly. At the same time, having been pushed aside by the administrative departments, the Party organization could not play a major part in the implementation of the system. During the second half of 1920, ULS brought about an improvement in the labor supply for urban industry. This was the result of the introduction at that time of labor mobilization based on the occupational registration and mobilization by age. However, the resulting influx of labor from the country to the cities had a disorganizing effect both for the supplier (the People's Commissariat for Labor) and employers. Deprived of material, cadres and know-how, the Bolshevik government at that time did not have the capability to regulate the movement of labor in such a vast country. From the analysis of ULS, the following scheme regarding the relationship between the Party organization and the administrative apparatus becomes apparent. The socialist ideology of the Party, having brought about the implementation of ULS, fostered an increase in the role of the administrative apparatus in society, which relatively lowered the position of the Party organization there. Paradoxically enough, Party ideology promoted the trend toward the leading role of the administrative apparatus in social life, a trend which had existed for a long time under the Russian empire.