@article{ART001444931},
author={KWON Se Eun},
title={1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system},
journal={Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies},
issn={1225-8539},
year={2009},
volume={16},
number={2},
pages={1-21},
doi={10.18107/japs.2009.16.2.001}
TY - JOUR
AU - KWON Se Eun
TI - 1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system
JO - Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies
PY - 2009
VL - 16
IS - 2
PB - Institute of Global Affairs
SP - 1
EP - 21
SN - 1225-8539
AB - This article reviews current academic debates about the management of the Soviet
system held in 1920-30s. The nature of the debate that took place immediately after
Russian socialist revolution went beyond its time and place. By reviewing the thoughts of
Vladimir Lenin, Iosif Stalin, Alexander Borganov, Nikolay Buharin and Alexei Gastev, this
article will shed some light on the nature of the debate. In terms of analytic method, I
investigate two mechanisms, the management mechanism and self-organizing mechanism,
as key factors for the stability and development of the system. Any public body can be
considered as a system containing two mechanisms - management and self-organization
- together form a single mechanism of its adaptation and development.
The core of the debate about the management of Soviet state results in the correlation of
self-organization. During the formation period of Soviet state and the period of war,
communism had been exhibited as an extreme imbalance of the system. To stabilize the state
of the system, the management mechanism was adapted to the system. The management
mechanism has been understood primarily as the homeostasis machinery, the mechanism to
reduce the level of disorder of the system. When new economy policy was installed, there was
a conflict between the subject attempting to extend managing power and the object attempting
to extend self-organizational power. After industrialization and collectivization policy had been
executed, the term of ‘управление’ was interpreted as ‘scientific control of social system to
promote the welfare of the people’. The meaning of this term was acknowledged as the
totalitarian nature, denying the self-organizational power of the system. Meanwhile, the
controversy about national management was linked with Lenin's successor and to political,
factional issues. Thus, the nature of the dispute included the features political struggle, and
went far from the academic and political discourse.
KW - Management;Self-organization;War Communism;New Economic Policy;Planned Economy
DO - 10.18107/japs.2009.16.2.001
ER -
KWON Se Eun. (2009). 1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system. Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 16(2), 1-21.
KWON Se Eun. 2009, "1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system", Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, vol.16, no.2 pp.1-21. Available from: doi:10.18107/japs.2009.16.2.001
KWON Se Eun "1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system" Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies 16.2 pp.1-21 (2009) : 1.
KWON Se Eun. 1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system. 2009; 16(2), 1-21. Available from: doi:10.18107/japs.2009.16.2.001
KWON Se Eun. "1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system" Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies 16, no.2 (2009) : 1-21.doi: 10.18107/japs.2009.16.2.001
KWON Se Eun. 1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system. Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 16(2), 1-21. doi: 10.18107/japs.2009.16.2.001
KWON Se Eun. 1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system. Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies. 2009; 16(2) 1-21. doi: 10.18107/japs.2009.16.2.001
KWON Se Eun. 1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system. 2009; 16(2), 1-21. Available from: doi:10.18107/japs.2009.16.2.001
KWON Se Eun. "1920-30s' debate about the management of the Soviet system" Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies 16, no.2 (2009) : 1-21.doi: 10.18107/japs.2009.16.2.001
