The Economics of Forced Labor in the Soviet Union: a Historiographical Overview

Ryabova Yuliya Vladimirovna PhD in History Associate Professor, Department of “Management in Social and Economic Systems, Philosophy and History”, Ural State Transport University 66 Kolmogorova str., Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk region, 620034, Russia YuRyabova@usurt.ru Other publications by this author

Over the past four decades, the structure and activities of the GULAG have been the object of persistent attention from domestic and foreign researchers. The desire for a scientific understanding of this phenomenon, to determine its role and place in the Stalinist state system began due to the policy of perestroika, accompanied by the declassification of archival documents. The archival revolution that took place in the late 80s and early 90s of the 20th century allowed historians to introduce into scientific circulation a huge mass of previously inaccessible materials, thereby provoking unprecedented interest in the essence of the Soviet punitive system in society. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 658 of June 23, 1992 played a significant role in this process. "On the removal of restrictive labels from legislative and other acts that served as the basis for mass repression and encroachments on human rights," which decided to declassify decisions of government, party bodies and departmental acts entailing encroachments on human rights. The process of declassification of state funds was accompanied by the publication and publication of unique primary sources ^[1-3].

Special attention to this topic was shown not only by historians, but also by journalists, public figures, and ordinary citizens of the country. Many had a personal interest and desire to find out the truth about the system, which their relatives and friends had become victims of. As a result of active public activity, memorial books and memorials dedicated to victims of political repression began to appear in the country, memoirs of former GULAG prisoners ^[4-7], historical, journalistic and memoir publications covering various aspects of the punitive and repressive Soviet system ^[8-10] became widespread. The publications that often appeared were sharply revealing and emotional, which deprived them of objectivity and scientific value, but the accumulated array of sources allowed the process of their historiographical comprehension to begin. The GULAG became the object of historical research and the range of issues that were studied was very wide.

Initially, in post-Soviet Russian historiography in the second half of the 1990s, there was a process of formation and approval of theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of Stalinism and its genesis, the foundations of the totalitarian Soviet system, and the mechanisms of functioning of state structures that implemented repressive policies. The scientific search also covered the functioning of the institutions of the penal system at the level of correctional labor camps, colonies and special settlements, their economic activities, the structure of the camp-industrial complex, the economic effectiveness of the use of forced labor. Various categories of the repressed special contingent have also been analyzed and statistically studied — prisoners, labor soldiers, prisoners of war, special settlers, internees, prisoners of screening and filtration camps.

Historical science during this period developed in the context of the transition to pluralism, manifested in a variety of assessments and a wide range of opinions, which contributed to the emergence of discussion in understanding many issues of the Stalinist period. It should be noted that at this stage the emphasis in scientific research was placed on determining the essence of the Soviet totalitarian system and on studying its repressive mechanisms. The researchers tried to understand the fundamental components of the Soviet repressive system, and the issues of the GULAG's economic activities and its economic characteristics were less thoroughly studied.

But over time, Russian historical science has shown a deep interest in the study of the Soviet economy of forced labor, to determine the feasibility of using a special ingredient in the sectors of the national economy, to its economic effectiveness, and in this area there has been a noticeable transition from the development of an array of primary sources to the methodology of studying the problem. The entire body of scientific papers devoted to the use of forced labor in the Soviet economy can be roughly divided into three groups: those devoted to the Soviet mobilization economy; the GULAG system as a political, ideological and economic phenomenon; and the construction of individual national economic facilities (hydroelectric power plants, factories, infrastructure, etc.) ^[11].

The first attempt to analyze the economic activities of the Soviet GULAG was made by O. V. Khlevnyuk. Using the example of the production activities of the NKVD of the USSR in the late 1920s and early 1940s, he showed the importance of forced labor for the Soviet economic system ^[12]. In his works, Khlevnyuk clearly demonstrated that mass repression and the system of criminal penalties allowed the political leadership of the country to achieve primarily political goals, but this led to huge economic costs ^[13].

The researcher raised the question of the effectiveness of camp labor and its importance for the economy of the Soviet Union, and considered the mobilization nature of the Soviet economy to be the reason for the emergence of labor camps ^[14]. He established that forced labor in the Soviet economy is an important feature of the Stalinist model of industrialization, where politics has absolute priority over economics ^[14-15]. He does not connect the emergence of Stalinist terror with the economic needs of the state. O. V. Khlevnyuk points to the devastating consequences of the policy of the Stalinist regime. He emphasizes that "only a country as rich in human and natural resources as the Soviet Union could survive the physical destruction of hundreds of thousands of able-bodied citizens, the ruin of millions of peasant farms, the maintenance of a huge punitive apparatus, etc." ^{[13, pp. 88-89]}.

Among the first generalizing works, G. M. Ivanova's fundamental work deserves special attention, where the author, along with social and legal issues, examines the economic component of the GULAG. Ivanova questions the correctness of considering the essence of the GULAG as a penitentiary structure and considers it as a repressive institution ^[16]. G. M. Ivanova identifies a number of reasons for the creation of the GULAG. Firstly, it is an opportunity to overcome the crisis caused by the increasing flow of prisoners. Secondly, it is a tool for isolating class enemies and pacifying the opposition in society. Thirdly, the positive camp production experience used in the country's economy ^{[16, p. 422]}.

G. M. Ivanova, considering the process of formation and functioning of the Soviet camp-industrial complex, comes to the conclusion that forced labor in the early years The existence of Soviet power was perceived as a punitive category, not as an economic one ^[16]. At the same time, the author points out the inefficiency and irrationality of the camp economy, provides evidence of the presence of mass attributions characteristic of Gulag reporting ^[17-18]. Giving a description of the camp-industrial complex, she points out that the leading sectors of the camp economy were mining, metallurgy, fuel (oil and coal mining) and logging, and the main sector was multidisciplinary construction: industrial, railway, highway, hydraulic engineering, etc. ^[16]. Tracing the evolution of the camp economy, G. M. Ivanov shows that since the late 1930s, the USSR leadership has given it a pronounced military-industrial character, which explains the transfer to the NKVD of a number of large industrial facilities that had previously been subordinate to civilian departments ^[16].

A great contribution to the study of the camp-industrial complex was made by the collective monograph "GULAG: Economics of forced Labor" edited by I. Borodkin, P. Gregory, O. V. Khlevnyuk ^[19]. This work was the result of research into previously classified archival collections of such Soviet punitive agencies as the OGPU, the NKVD, the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Main Directorate of the Camps. It offered a systematic presentation of various aspects of the forced labor economy, from the establishment of the camp system in the USSR to the transformation of the GULAG into the largest economic unit in the country. At the same time, the main topic of the monograph is forced labor, its productivity and efficiency (rather, inefficiency), as well as the methods used by the ITL administration to increase the productivity of forced labor of prisoners.

The book consists of two parts. The first part provides a description of the camp economy and the principles of its organization, examines the scale and its industry profile, the production management apparatus. In the second part, the camp–industrial complex is analyzed taking into account regional and industry specifics. The team of authors of the book consisted of both domestic researchers and foreign colleagues. The authors examined various aspects of the Soviet camp economy, the process of its formation, and also traced the process of the GULAG's formation as a large economic structure. At the same time, the main topic of the monograph is forced labor, its effectiveness and productivity.

A. K. Sokolov examines forced labor in the camps of the USSR in the context of the existing system of forced labor in the Soviet economy of the 1930s - mid—1950s ^[19]. O. V. Khlevnyuk provides an overview of the scale and structure of the OGPU—NKVD—MVD economy of the USSR, and trends in its development. S. Ertz analyzes the camp system from the point of view of the evolution of the administrative structure and management principles ^[19]. L. I. Borodkin studies the regulation of forced labor in the GULAG, the practice and methods of stimulating it, and the motivation for shock work ^[19]. J. Heinzen examines corruption in the camp system, its forms and scales ^[19]. K. Joyce presents the production activities of the GULAG system in Karelia in 1929-1941 ^[19]. D. Norlander addresses the question of the importance of the GULAG in the development of the economy of the Far East in the 30s of the XX century ^[19]. A. B. Suslov compares forced labor with voluntary labor in the Urals, analyzes its effectiveness and profitability ^[19]. L. I. Borodkin and S. Ertz addressed the issues of organizing and stimulating labor activity of prisoners in the Arctic ^[19]. S. A. Krasilnikov studies forced labor of special settlers of the north of Western Siberia in the 1930s, its mechanisms and results ^[19].

In the 2000s. In Russian historiography, interest in the Soviet Gulag has become less significant. The camp theme was gradually pushed out of the public space, but this problem still remained in the field of view of researchers. By now, Russian historiography has accumulated quite extensive material revealing the phenomenon of the Gulag system, which includes a number of fundamental monographs, hundreds of scientific publications, and many dissertations.

Currently, there is a shift in research emphasis towards microhistory, local processes of repressive politics, economic and economic activities of correctional labor camps and colonies, and the methodology of the problem of forced labor. Russian researchers have identified and defined the main approaches to the study of the Soviet system of forced labor. One cannot but agree with the opinion of E. A. Timokhova that the existing scientific works can be divided into three groups. The first is research that examines the GULAG system as a political, ideological and economic phenomenon. The second is the works that study individual national economic objects. The third is the work devoted to the Soviet mobilization economy ^[11].

The scientific works belonging to the first group continue to study the problems and prerequisites of the GULAG's formation, trace the main trends in the formation of the Stalinist totalitarian system, and consider the theoretical and legal analysis of the historical periods of its activity. These issues are reflected in the works of S. P. Samofalov ^[20], S. I. Kuzmin ^[21], I. V. Uporov ^[22], V. A. Berdinsky ^[23] and other authors. In addition, much attention is being paid today to the historical and legal analysis of the origin, formation and development of Soviet correctional labor camps (Bulatov T. R., Dolbik N. F. ^[24], Manyukhin I. S. ^[25], etc.), the GULAG is also analyzed as a social phenomenon of Soviet society (Udovenko I. V. ^[26], Bolshakov E. V., Zin N.V., Sizova A. S. ^[27] and others).

The scientific works of the second group are mainly represented by regional studies prepared on the basis of materials from those territories where GULAG units were located. This is the territory of Siberia, the Urals, the Russian North and the Far East. The appeal to local processes in the repressive policy of the Soviet state made it possible to identify not only the general trends in the formation and development of the camp system as a whole, but also to identify its regional and sectoral features. The range of issues reflected in the works of scientists includes not only the production, economic and economic aspects of the camp system, but also its social consequences.

Of particular interest is the study of individual correctional labor camps and colonies. Researchers are interested in their locations and structure, number, composition, conditions of detention and work of the special agent, labor productivity, production and economic activities of places of detention and other issues. The list of authors who have paid attention to the regional specifics of forced labor is quite wide. For example, Yu.V. Ryabova investigated the activities of Yuzhkuzbasslag ^[28], E. A. Timokhov ^[29] — Kuneevsky ITL, N. V. Upadyshev ^[30] — Vorkuta ITL, M. V. Rubinov ^[31] — Vishersky ITL, E. G. Mikheenkov ^[32] — SIBLAG, V. N. Mamyachenkov ^[33] — Sevurallag, etc. A number of researchers have highlighted their scientific works on the study of individual industrial enterprises where forced labor was used. For example, Tsepkalova A. A. ^[34] investigated the participation of a special agent in the facilities of Chelyabmetallurgstroy, Burdin E.A. ^[35] — in the hydraulic engineering facilities of the Moscow-Volga canal, D. A. Belov ^[36] — in the construction of the Stalingrad–Saratov railway, E.A. Burdin ^[37] — Volzhskaya HPP, etc.

Within the framework of the third group, the following problem-thematic blocks can be distinguished in modern scientific literature, including the study of the following issues: directive and mobilization economics; repressive politics; subsystems of the Soviet economy within the framework of the mobilization model; repressive economy; forced labor systems ^[38]. A number of Russian researchers have contributed to the development of this area.

Thus, V. V. Sedov identified the reasons for the emergence of the Soviet mobilization economy ^[39]. A. S. Senyavsky identified a number of internal and external factors that had a significant impact on the formation of the Soviet mobilization economy ^[40]. K. I. Zubkov attempted to analyze the phenomenon of the mobilization economy and discovered its roots in the European history of modern times ^[41]. I. V. Berezhnikov drew attention to the fact that the Russian mentality has been since the first In the fourth quarter of the XVIII century, during the reign of Peter I, it was set up for an authoritarian, repressive version of modernization ^[42]. V. M. Kirillov came to the conclusion that the system of forced labor exploited people, depleted their physical and genetic potential and was a "system of social vampirism" ^[43].

It should be noted that in Russian historiography there is a debate on the issue of assessing the Soviet Stalinist modernization, its effectiveness and expediency. According to O. V. Khlevnyuk, general assessments of the economics of forced labor, the problems of its effectiveness and role in the implementation of Soviet industrialization will remain controversial due to the uncertainty and ambiguity of the subject itself ^[44]. In addition, to determine the effectiveness of the camp-industrial complex in terms of economic indicators, a thorough analysis of statistical materials is required, but today this seems difficult due to the lack of materials among researchers capable of giving an exhaustive answer to this question, especially in terms of comparing camp and national economic production. But most researchers agree that the main industrial significance of the GULAG was its ability to quickly concentrate labor at industrial facilities and obtain the desired result, preferring to obtain an economic effect rather than improving its economic efficiency.

At the same time, most researchers note the inefficiency of the GULAG's camp and economic activities from the standpoint of economic theory (N. Y. Belykh ^[45], Yu. V. Ryabova ^[46], R. S. Bikmetov ^[47], S. A. Shevyrin ^[48]. and others . But some researchers have a different opinion and believe that the GULAG was a highly efficient economic system. For example, A. S. Smykalin came to the conclusion that they were an obligatory part of the institution of the Soviet state due to the intensification of its repressive policy, and due to this, high production results were achieved ^[49].

There is no single point of view among Russian scientists when determining the ratio of punitive, educational and economic tasks of the GULAG's production activities. O. V. Khlevnyuk does not see a connection between terror and the economic tasks of the country, but considers it a consequence of repressive policies aimed at minimizing material losses ^[44]. D. Norlander believes that it is economic, not political the needs of the state determined the production and economic activities of the GULAG camps ^[50]. G. M. Ivanova concludes that initially forced labor in the USSR was considered a punitive category, not an economic one, and the use of prisoners as labor occurred later due to the needs of increasing industrial potential ^[16]. N. Y. Belykh believes that that the Soviet camp economy of the 1930s - 1950s can be considered as one of the most important features of the Stalinist socio−economic model, in which politics had absolute priority over economics ^[45].

Thus, a brief historiographical review shows that Russian historical science in the post-Soviet period has come a long way from exposing and criticizing the Soviet model of government to defining the foundations of the institutions of the totalitarian system, from analyzing the foundations of the forced labor economy to studying its role in the economy of the Soviet Union. However, many issues, especially those related to the production efficiency of the mobilization economy, are controversial and there is a broad research perspective in their study. In particular, further comparative studies at the micro level and the study of the methodology of the problem of forced labor will provide more accurate empirical information for assessing the activities of the Soviet camp-industrial complex, which operated in the 30-50s of the XX century.