James W. Heinzen.

“Professional Identity and the Vision of the Modern Soviet Country Side: Local
Agricultural Specialists at the End of the NEP, 1928-1929.” Cahiers du Monde russe 39:1 (1998): 9-25.

Scholarship on the New Economic Period, or NEP, in Soviet history traditionally focused on
analyzing the construction of the industrial state through the reports and lifestyles of urban workers.
James Henizen instead asks why so little attention has been paid to rural workers, considering the
relative enormity of the USSR and lack of established large-scale urbanization during the NEP period.
Reviewing primary sources from the archives of the former Peoples Commissariat of Agriculture
(Narkomzem), as well as samplings from the state and economic archives, Henizen convincingly argues
that rural workers, such as agronomists and land surveyors, felt slighted at the relative lack of pay and
amenities as compared to their urban counterparts. Thus, when authorities announced plans for
collectivization of the countryside, many, but not all, Narkomzem workers saw the opportunity to
increase their professional standing and re-articulate their role in the larger quest of building socialism.
However, as Heinzen makes very clear, the appeal of collectivization for many rural workers lay not in
the idea of class struggle but in increasing the productivity of the Russian farmer. As such, Heinzen
demonstrates that our understanding of the NEP and shift to Collectivization is incomplete without
taking into account this diverse work force.
Agronomist's in the Soviet Union during the NEP period had plenty to complain about. While
receiving a post close to Moscow, Leningrad, or the provincial capitals was the dream of many worker,
the majority served in very rural areas, covering an assigned territory that averaged around 88 villages
and around 4,000-5,000 farms. Work provisions, such as a horse or apartment, proved to be scarce for
most Agronomists and only added to their general complaints of woefully lacking resources provided
by the state. Distrusted by the peasants and disregarded by local Soviet authorities, rural workers of the
Narkomzem in many ways exemplified the tradition of Russian intelligentsia in that they desired to
improve the life and productivity of the Russian peasant, yet at the same time generally despised those
they were trying to help, labeling them 'agronomically illiterate'. Low pay and poor conditions in many
postings prompted specialists to seek supplementary income, which in turn created high turnover as
Agronomists traveled from district to district in search of the best working opportunities. Interestingly,
Heinzen points out that 88% of rural workers were non-party members and thus viewed their job more
in terms of a means to rebuild the devastated countryside, more so than a class-based struggle that
sought to 'root' our bourgeois elements in the villages and farms. The party recognized this fact and
presented the collectivization campaign as a modernization program where rural workers shaped the
countryside into an oasis of productivity and culture, downplaying significantly any class-based
rhetoric.
Thus, when Soviet authorities presented the idea of collectivization, many rural workers saw in
the planned program a potential to seek increased professional prestige and standing. Agronomists
actively reshaped their identity, even articulating new terms such as 'Agronomizatsiia' (re-organization
of peasant farming along modern models) and defining their role as that of an Agronomic-Engineer or
Agronomic Organizer, in the wake of the new campaign. Heinzen is quick to point out that not all
Narkomzem were enthusiastic to take up the ambitious project, given the lofty goals and historic lack of
resources for rural projects. However, for some, the new land campaign promised a fast track to
funding, recognition, and prestige, all elements desired by often embattled rural workers. Heinzen's
exploration into the plight of the rural agronomist brings to light members of a professional
bureaucracy often overlooked in favor of their urban counterparts and makes a strong case that
Agronomists perceived lack of respect and shortage of resources directly contributed to their initial
enthusiasm for collectivization campaign, despite it being cast outside the model of class warfare.