The Very Devil
LABOUR POLICY IN THE U.S.S.R. 1917-28. By Margaret Dewar (R.I.I.A., 45s.) ..ry SOME PROBLEMS OF INCENTIVES AND LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY' SOVIET INDUSTRY. By G. R. Barker. (Blackwell, 14s.) MRS. DEWAR has traced 'the evolution of Soviet labour policy solely on the basis of official documents' (my italics); indeed nea half her book is a straight catalogue rnisonne of decrees• lig thus a useful but very specialised book, and by an equal fat°, a. a dull one. Soviet labour policy is a subject of the greatest fa J,, tion, as readers of Messrs. Deutscher and Schwarz well kt/le)at Specialisation is no cause of dullness, but wilfUlly to eolltio oneself to decrees is to make any subject boring. The nal'io text is lifeless, and the bibliography quotes not a single oPP°s.:0" re memoir or newspaper, or Western study. This is all the u're: surprising and regrettable as Mrs. Dewar was actually a footnote suddenly reveals her (or her friends?) bartering powder for food, and stealing timber for firewood. Acas That footnote is indeed an oasis in the desert; it reminds that Russia was inhabited by men. The fact is that Mrs. D.,;a0 belongs to that perverse school of Soviet experts whose two are acknowledged in her preface : Mr. Carr and Miss conomo, Such is the passion of these distinguished students for acellr.ai; and impartiality that they hardly dare describe the human helii involved, or venture into any other disputed field. They 01„%it agenda for motives and minutes for events. Since the whole d is controversial they give us only the partial truth that is –0J But at least Mrs. Dewar tells us openly what she is doing,40 is scholarly and accurate. Nor does her desiccation conceal as so often desiccation does. as One statement must be corrected, that there has been ,l ;,her
essential modification' of Soviet labour policy since 1928
closing date). On the contrary there has been the most thoroillit, conceivable revolution : more piece-work, greater ineclItiii many forms of labour direction, work pass books, Soe'; competition, Stakhanovism, the abolition of labour excha,,icei and the Ministry of Labour, the handing over of social ser'io to the trade unions. From the ordinary Western Welfare Soct of 1928 something totally new has grown, that reduces very ni the intrinsic interest of Mrs. Dewar's subject. A bad book is the devil for a reviewer. Give charity and 111301 consideration their full weight, must he not say what he thil/rq Mr. Barker has written what can only be called a mediocre Par
tract. Much more intelligent work, really useful though still very pro-Soviet, has come from his department (which is that of Economics and Institutions of the USSR at Birmingham University). It is a pity to see good names on the front page, lending their aegis to something so unscholarly.
PETER WILES
Previous page
