Stalinist Public or Communitarian Project? Housing Organisations and Self-Managed Canteens in Moscow's Frunze Raion

Abstract

In 1929, when rationing was introduced widely across the Soviet Union, urban residents and housing organisations started to organise their own canteens at the residence level by collecting their ration books. These were called ‘self-managed canteens’ (samodeyatel'nye stolovye). Although this canteen project did not expand as expected during the food crisis of the early 1930s, the project was more successful in Moscow's Frunze raion. This was especially true of canteen No. 171, reportedly established at the initiative of housewives, which continued to operate until 1940 with a steady growth in gross sales, and which started to allocate part of its profits to local community activities. This unique case exemplifies a communitarian project by residents which might lead to a reconsideration of the ‘public’ under the Stalinist regime.

Notes

I thank Nobuaki Shiokawa, Yoshiro Ikeda, Matthew Lenoe and others for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article which was presented at the Twenty-first Century COE Seminar of the Slavic Research Center at Hokkaido University in March 2006. I am also indebted to two anonymous referees of Europe-Asia Studies for their helpful suggestions. Research for this article was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

On the hierarchy of consumption, see Osokina (1993); for an excellent study on mass resistance in the early 1930s, see Rossman (2005); on the phenomenon of blat, see Ledeneva (1998) and Fitzpatrick (1999, pp. 62–66); for a comprehensive study of Soviet trade and consumption in the 1930s, see Osokina (1998) and Hessler (2004).

On various issues around the kommunalka, see Boym (1994, chapter 2), Kotkin (1995, chapter 4), Fitzpatrick (1999, pp. 46–50), Lebina (1999, pp. 178–202) and Gerasimova (2000). For the most recent and inclusive study of Soviet housing policies and organisations, and residents’ life-world in Leningrad in 1917–37, see Obertreis (2004).

Bol'shaya sovetskaya entsiklopediya, Tom 25 (Moscow, Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, 1932),pp. 447–50.

Sobranie zakonov i rasporyazhenii raboche-krest'yanskogo pravitel'stva SSSR, 5, 1924, pp. 65–72.

Rabochaya moskva, 17 March 1931, p. 3.

Resheniya partii i pravitel'stva po khozyaistvennym voprosam, Tom 2, 1929–1940 gody (Moscow, Politizdat, 1967), pp. 617–27.

In the formative period of self-managed canteens, other names were often used such as kukhnya stolov, kollektivnye stolovye and kommunal'naya stolovaya. See Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv ekonomii (hereafter RGAE), f. 7754, op. 1, d. 79, ll. 3, 43; Ruchimskii (1929, p. 33); Obshchestvennoe pitanie, 3, 1930, p. 9.

Tsentral'nyi arkhiv goroda Moskvy (hereafter TsAGM), f. 2474, op. 1, d. 3, l. 6; Ruchimskii (1929, p. 33). The recorded date of establishment of canteen No. 171, 8 March, may have been consciously connected with International Women's Day for the purpose of symbolising their initiative. As analysed later, this canteen, in which an engineer reportedly played a key role from start to finish, continued to operate throughout the 1930s, but most other canteens established in this period were supposedly closed within several years.

A report compiled by the VSZhK in 1932, referring to the fact that the self-managed canteens project started in 1929, mentioned that there existed ‘the purpose of abolishing the queues’ accompanying the introduction of the individual ration system as well as the famous slogan ‘the liberation of women from the individual kitchen’ (RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, l. 12).

An essay published in February 1930 remarked: ‘Collective canteens were rapidly emerging in large-scale houses where housewives frequently encountered each other in the common kitchen. It seems perfectly natural that the idea emerged that housewives not go shopping separately and cook in front of a kerosene burner, but that two or three housewives … cook the food, by rotation. These canteens were named “self-managed canteens”. In a short time, around 20 canteens were organised in different areas of Moscow’ (Obshchestvennoe pitanie, 3, 1930, p. 9). At a Moscow conference on self-managed canteens held in May 1930, one housewife reported: ‘collective buying and cooking produced considerable convenience and economy … under the leadership of veteran women cooks’ (Obshchestvennoe pitanie, 12, 1930, p. 11).

Obshchestvennoe pitanie, 12, 1930, p. 11.

Zhilishchnoe khozyaistvo, 3, 1930, p. 19; Kul'tura i byt, 27, 1931, p. 13.

We find some mention of canteens run at the residence level in Zhilishchnaya kooperatsiya, an organ of the VSZhK and Tsentrozhilsoyuz, of 1929, although the name varies (Ruchimskii 1929, p. 33; Chebotarskii 1929, p. 24; Kozhanyi 1929, p. 11; passim). As far as we know, the earliest mention of canteens referred to as ‘self-managed’ is found in one of the agendas of an organisational bureau meeting on 21 January 1930 held under the Tsentrosoyuz in preparation for the All-Union Conference of Public Dining (RGAE, f. 484, op. 15, d. 18, l. 238).

Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (hereafter GARF), f. 5452, op. 14, d. 68, ll. 142, 145; Sazonova (1931, p. 28); Obshchestvennoe pitanie, 3, 1930, p. 9.

Obshchestvennoe pitanie, 13, 1930, p. 13.

RGAE, f. 484, op. 8, d. 843, l. 7.

This ‘defect’ remained an unsolved problem thereafter. The first All-Union Conference on Self-Managed Canteens held by the All-Union Autonomous Section of Public Dining (Vsesoyuznaya avtonomnaya sektsiya po obshchestvennomu pitaniyu, hereafter Vsekoopit) under the Tsentrosoyuz in February 1932 referred in the resolution to the smaller proportion of workers and their families among all users as a defect of the canteens and attributed the reason to ‘the lack of control over the social composition of users’ (RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, l. 45ob.).

An investigation of Moscow's self-managed canteens revealed that ‘they were mostly located in the centre’ and a majority of their users were ‘white-collar employees in terms of social composition’ (GARF, f. 5452, op. 14, d. 68, l. 151). Another essay analysing Moscow's self-managed canteens mentioned that ‘80% of canteen users were white-collar employees, as against only 20% workers’ (Mel'man 1931, p. 20). A Moscow newspaper reported that there were no self-managed canteens in some raions where many workers lived, especially in Stalin raion and Proletarii raion (Grudnin 1932, p. 2).

The tendency towards fewer self-managed canteens in the workers’raion was explained by other factors. An investigative report presented by a branch of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection (Raboche-krest'yanskaya inspektsiya) attributed one reason to the difference in housing conditions between the city centre and the workers’raion: ‘In the city centre, many residential buildings have spaces for stores and warehouses for keeping warm, which enables allocation for canteen space and kitchens. This is not the case in the workers’raion’ (Solomonov 1930, p. 10). For a remark suggesting similar reasoning, see Mogilevkin (1931, p. 13). Another reason could be that in the city centre there existed many specialists and intellectuals presumably needed for drawing up the plans for the canteens and managing them, and in addition many of their partners were probably housewives, who had relatively more time and cultural skills to engage in this project.

GARF, f. 5452, op. 14, d. 67, l. 113ob.; d. 66, ll. 74–74ob.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 13, l. 182.

RGAE, f. 484, op. 15, d. 39, l. 19.

Trud, 1 October 1931, p. 4.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 20, ll. 1–3.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 91, l. 11.

GARF, f. 5452, op. 14, d. 65, ll. 134–35ob., 174–78.

RGAE, f. 484, op. 15, d. 21, ll. 167–70; RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, ll. 2–6.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, ll. 7–9.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, ll. 22, 66, 71–72.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, ll. 21, 33, 45–46.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, ll. 29, 45; f. 484, op. 15, d. 55, l. 16.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, l. 42.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, l. 45ob. Sazonova (1931, p.28) presented a much lower figure. According to the RSFSR plan, 743 canteens should have been constructed in 1931, but as of 1 September 1931, only 37 canteens had been opened.

GARF, f. 5452, op. 14, d. 71, l. 127, d. 73, l. 142.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, l. 42.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 1, l. 16; d. 91, ll. 4, 8, 15, 42.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 584, l. 4; op. 3, d. 42, ll. 1–162. The figure as of 1935 (seven canteens) was calculated on the basis of data acquired from 47 of the 48 sub-raions, excluding a data sheet presented from one sub-raion. Because this sheet noted only the number of canteens in the sub-raion without any other concrete data, such as space, number of users, and so on, it did not appear reliable. If these data were to be included, the total number of canteens as of 1935 would be 10.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 91, l. 2.

TsAGM, f. 490, op. 1, d. 2, l. 42; d. 3, l. 52ob.

Spisok abonentov moskovskoi gorodskoi telefonnoi seti, 1939 g. (Moscow, 1939), p. 442; Spisok abonentov moskovskoi gorodskoi telefonnoi seti, 1940 g. (Moscow, 1940), p. 501. Canteen No. 171, as discussed later, was still operating in 1940 and was equipped with its own telephone, but was not noted in the directories.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 91, l. 49.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, l. 33.

On financial difficulties, see Obshchestvennoe pitanie, 3, 1930, p. 9. It was reported that self-managed canteens could not obtain the necessary kitchen equipment even through their own funds (Solomonov 1930, p. 10). Public canteens were generally not able to reach the year's control figure due to the shortage of housing materials and equipment (Trud, 6 December 1931, p. 2).

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 91, l. 5. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, the limited expansion of self-managed canteens may have been partly caused by the fact that many of the housewives who were expected to actively participate in this project were absorbed into paid work in the industries, which enlarged the demand of women's labour in the early 1930s.

GARF, f. 5452, op. 14, d. 68, ll. 142–52.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, l. 33.

TsAGM, f. 1474, op. 7, d. 213, l. 140.

GARF, f. 5452, op. 14, d. 73, l. 142; RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, l. 34.

RGAE, f. 484, op. 15, d. 19, l. 48.

RGAE, f. 484, op. 15, d. 55, l. 15.

RGAE, f. 7754, op. 1, d. 92, l. 29; f. 484, op. 15, d. 55, l. 13.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 3, d. 746, ll. 40, 42, 49, 59, 81, 106–22. On the reorganisation of Moscow's districts, see Colton (1995, pp. 182–85, 303–04) and Shimotomai (1991, p. 45).

Since this canteen celebrated the first anniversary of its establishment at the end of 1929, it may have already opened in late 1928 (Zhilishchnoe tovarishchestvo-zhilishche i stroitel'stvo, 49–50, 1929, pp. 16–17).

Vechernyaya moskva, 28 April 1933, p. 2.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 584, l. 4; op. 3, d. 42, ll. 1–162.

Spisok abonentov moskovskoi gorodskoi telefonnoi seti, 1939 g. (Moscow, 1939), p. 442; Spisok abonentov moskovskoi gorodskoi telefonnoi seti, 1940 g. (Moscow, 1940), p. 501. Other materials indicate the importance of the Frunze raion. According to the plan for new construction and renovation of cultural and daily living facilities under ZhAKTy in 1935, in the 10 raions of Moscow, five canteens (three in Frunze and two in Krasnaya-presnya) were to be newly constructed, but as of 1 January 1936, only two canteens in Frunze and one in Krasnaya-presnya were actually opened (TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 568, l. 11). A similar construction and renovation plan based on the new district system in 1936 shows that only one canteen was to be constructed in Frunze, and five canteens (one each in Frunze, Kiev and Krasnaya-gvardiya raions and two in Krasnaya-presnya raion) were to be renovated. It is uncertain whether or not the two in Krasnaya-presnya were located in the former Frunze raion. However, the proportion in the former Frunze raion is large, including one in Kiev raion (TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 568, l. 11; d. 830, l. 109ob.–10).

Vechernyaya moskva, 28 April 1933, p. 2. The Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection in Frunze raion had critically investigated an unsuccessful livestock project conducted by a ZhAKTy housing union located in Frunze raion. This case possibly supports the omnipresence of such projects in Frunze raion (TsAGM, f. 1474, op. 7, d. 213, ll. 4–5).

In addition, the fact that Frunze raion was a relatively wealthy area, in which many artists, scientists, party and government personnel lived, should be noted as a reason for the explanation of the canteens’ active operation in this raion, because higher-income residents would enable the canteens to raise funds from them, for example, at the time of the opening, as shown in the case of a canteen mentioned below.

In April 1936, the pereulok was incorporated into the Krasnaya-presnya raion.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 3, d. 746, l. 81.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 91, ll. 48–66.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 91, ll. 64–64ob.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 91, l. 60ob.

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 3, ll. 6, 40–42; d. 4, l. 15ob.

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 1, l. 1. Housewives’ active participation in self-managed canteens organised in the late 1920s and early 1930s could be seen as a forerunner of the Obshchestvennitsa movement, which is generally considered to have started in the mid-1930s. For some studies of the Obshchestvennitsa, see Buckley (1996), Neary (1999) and Schrand (1999b). On various representations of housewives in the 1930s, see Attwood (1999, chapter 8).

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 1, ll. 1–28, d. 3, l. 38.

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 2, ll. 5, 29, 49, 73, 78.

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 2, ll. 23, 36, 59, 63.

Rabochaya moskva, 24 May 1938, p. 1; Moskovskii bol'shevik, 20 May 1939, p. 2; Vechernyaya moskva, 15 June 1940, p. 2.

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 3, ll. 1–4. Actually, the canteen section might not have played such a definite role. A protocol from the cultural and daily living commission meeting held on 11 April 1939 mentioned: ‘As the canteen section had not worked and was not working, chairperson G. P. Rakhmanov should inspect accounts until a new leader of the canteen section is appointed’ (TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 3, l. 11). Management of the canteen was basically placed under the charge of Rakhmanov and the canteen's director.

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 3, ll. 6, 18, 20–21.

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 4, l. 12ob; d. 3, l. 19.

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 2, l. 78; d. 3, l. 17.

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 3, l. 33.

TsAGM, f. 2474, op. 1, d. 3, l. 37.

TsAGM, f.2474, op. 1, d. 3, l. 44.

The report also included the information that teachers and staff of an opera studio and a technical college of music located in the vicinity, personnel of the city's and district's health care departments, as well as residents, were its regular customers; most of the canteen staff worked there for a long period (a cashier had worked there since 1929) and five employees lived in the same apartment building as the canteen; Rakhmanov, the Chairperson of CDLC, was a veteran engineer and had participated in the canteen's work since the canteen's foundation.

TsAGM, f. 1495, op. 1, d. 91, l. 65ob.