1989 年 98 巻 11 号 p. 1741-1780,1890-
Immediately after the Bolshevik revolution the soviet state had to carry out economic reconstruction by itself, but it lacked its own technical specialists. Therefore, it was an essential question for the ruling party and the state to integrate so-called "bourgeois" (or the old) specialists under the new regime. This paper aims to analyze the mutual relationship between these specialists and the soviet state, and between specialists and workers in the production sector during the 1920s. By analyzing this relationship the author tries to throw some light on a few aspects of the politico-social transformation that the soviet state and society went through in the late 1920s. The party and the state tried to integrate and utilize specialists who were educated and started their career under the old regime without questioning their political loyalty for the time being. Indeed in the 1920s, this integration of the specialists in quantity made progress under trade unions, and many policies were made to win them over in industrial construction. But in practice these policies were not always successful. To the contrary, there were so many complicated factors in production that policy-makers found it difficult to utilize the specialists as they wanted. Through the 1920s, between specialists and production workers, a characteristic phenomenon was observed, that is, 'specialist-baiting' (spetseedstvo). Numerous materials about the technical specialists in the 1920s warned against 'spets-baiting' in production. But the new tasks in industrial construction after 1925/26 made this phenomenon more serious. Such is the case with the relationship between the specialists and the economic organs in production, especially the 'red directors'. It is true it was essential for enterprise management to establish collaboration between them, and in this sense, in appearance it may be seen that the relationship between the red directors and the non-party specialists was fairly harmonious. But as 'spets-baiting' increased, this relationship became also strained after 1925/26. The Shakhty Affair in 1928 marked the start of widespread 'spets-baiting' and led to mass arrests against the technical specialists, especially the old specialists. This was justified by the recognition that there were many 'wreckers' among the old specialists in the form of 'the sharpening of the class struggle' with the bourgeois elements. Check and control over the technical specialists were strengthened, and intolerance against their mistakes grew up after the Shakhty Affair. Labor discipline and labour productivity quickly declined in this atmosphere. And from this point of view 'spets-baiting' was rebuked by the party and the state, but it was not easy to combat this phenomenon. Before the Shakhty Affair less attention was paid to the political neutrality or apoliticism of the specialists, but now their political loyalty to the regime was demanded. In this sense, it was very symbolic that the All-Union Association of Engineers, which had relative independence from the regime in the 1920s, was liquidated in 1929.