Stalinist Public or Communitarian Project?

Housing Organizations and Self-Managed Canteens in Moscow’s Frunze Raion
Yasuhiro Matsui (Kagawa University)

Introduction
This article attempts to demonstrate the existence of a kind of micro-public sphere stemming fromlocal initiatives in Stalin’s Moscow during the 1930s. More concretely, it analyzes the little known
community business of canteens organized and self-managed under housing organizations such as“house-leasing cooperative partnerships” (ZhAKTy: Zhilishchno-arendnye kooperativnye tovarishchestva)
at the residence level, especially those in Moscow’s Frunze raion.
Food and housing, the two intertwining focal points of this article, were crucial factors for people
living under the Stalinist regime. Stalin’s revolution – radical industrialization and forced agriculturalcollectivization driven since the end of the 1920s – brought about an unprecedented food crisis in mostregions of the Soviet Union and severe famine in some areas, and the rapidly growing stream of people tobig cities such as Moscow and Leningrad further deteriorated the cities’ housing situation. The food andhousing crisis, decisive in approaching ordinary people’s daily lives in the 1930s, is a main target ofresearch by social historians seeking to produce works of value. With respect to food matters, we havealready acquired many findings including the “hierarchy of consumption” based on the discriminatory
distribution system for food and other consumption goods; several cases of mass resistance by parts of the
population located at lower hierarchical positions; and the extended phenomenon of blat, a sort of private,
informal network for obtaining goods.1 Similarly, concerning housing matters, we have learned about thedistinctive housing system called komunalka (communal apartments), in which multiple families live
together in an apartment – usually one family to a room – and share basic living facilities such as thebathroom and kitchen; the ways in which the regime controlled the residents through komunalka; the1

On the hierarchy of consumption, see Elena Osokina, Ierarkhiia potrebleniia: o zhizni liudei v usloviiakh
stalinskogo snabzheniia, 1928-1935, M., 1993; for an excellent study on mass resistance in the early 1930s,
see Jeffrey Rossman, Workers Resistance under Stalin: Class and Revolution on the Shop Floor, Harvard
University Press, 2005; on the phenomenon of blat, see A. Legeneva, Russia’s Economy of Favours: Blat,
Networking and Informal Exchange, Cambridge University Press, 1998 and Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday
Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s, Oxford University Press,
1999, pp. 62-66; for a comprehensive study of Soviet trade and consumption in the 1930s, see Elena
Osokina, Za fasodom “stalinskogo izobiliia”: raspredelenie i rynok v snabzhenii naseleniia v gody
industrializatsii, 1927-1941, M., 1997 and Julie Hessler, A Social History of Soviet Trade: Trade Policy,
Retail Practices, and Consumption, 1917-1953, Princeton University Press, 2004.
1

ever-present friction and conflict among residents; and the arguments for creating the new Soviet men andwomen in a new Soviet culture under komunalka.2
We can conclude from the above findings that social historians have generally succeeded in
elucidating the regime’s rule over the masses through the total control of vital goods such as food andhousing; the mass resistance movements against the regime’s policies; and the survival tactics developed
among ordinary people as a basic tone of the era.
This article is rather unique compared with recent trends in researching these issues. First, the main
research object is the self-managed canteens (samodeiatel’naia stolovaia), which were basically eliminatedfrom historians’ main concerns and almost completely ignored by preceding researchers, despite the factthat self-managed canteens had been mentioned in newspapers, including major ones such as Pravda andIzvestiia. Second, the research on canteens run by housing organizations and residents is interestingly
positioned between food and housing. Third, this community business possibly existed beyond theboundaries of the power relationship between the ruler and the ruled and the survival tactics developed
among the ordinary people. Indeed, community canteens started with a small number of housewives
working to promote collective food purchase and cooking among residents during the growing food crisis
in 1929, and several administrative organizations, including the Commissariat of Provisionment,
Tsentrosoiuz (Central Union of Consumer Societies), VSZhK (Vsesoiuznyi sovet zhilishchnoi kooperatsii=All-Union Council of Housing Cooperatives), and Tsentrozhilsoiuz (Central Union of Housing Societies
in RSFSR) demonstrated a positive and supportive attitude toward their activities from the viewpoint ofenlarging the network of public canteens. In short, this process demonstrates a kind of cooperation amongresidents and collaboration between authorities and residents, whereby a scenario emerges in which theresidents attempted to realize public values based on communality, with some support from the regime.
Before examining the self-managed canteens, it is necessary to take a brief look at the housingorganizations and their activities in the 1930s. After the October Revolution in 1917, the Soviet
government confiscated countless houses and residential buildings from their owners and allocated much of2

On the komunalka, see Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 46-50; Natalia Levina, Povsednevnaia zhizn’ sovetskogo
gorada 1920-1930 gody, SPb, 1999, pp.178-202; Svetlana Boym, Common Places: Mythologies ofEveryday Life in Russia, Harvard University Press, 1994, pp.121-167. For arguments for creating Soviet
men and women under komunalka, see Ekaterina Gerasimova, Sovetskaia kommunal’naia kvartira kaksotsial’nyi institut: istoriko-sotsiologicheskii analiz (na materialakh Petrograda-Leningarada, 1917-1991,
Kandidatskaia dissertatsiia, SPb, 2000. For the most recent and inclusive study of komunalka and housingorganizations in Leningrad, see Julia Obertreis, Tränen des Sozialismus: Wohnen in Leningrad Zwischen
Alltag und Utopie 1917-1937, Böhlau Verlag, 2004.
2

this space to the working masses. In the transition to the New Economic Policy (NEP), relatively small
scale residences were returned to the previous owners, but most remained in the hands of state enterprises
and governmental organizations, especially municipalities. During the 1920s, the percentage of houses
controlled by municipal organizations increased steadily and the gradual establishment of housing
cooperatives started in the early 1920s.3 Implementation of these cooperatives relied on the argument that
control and management by the residents themselves would enable effective maintenance and repair ofhouses that suffered from short supply and decay. The decision of the Soviet government “On housing
cooperatives” on August 19, 1924 attempted to promote maintenance of old houses and new construction,using residents’ participation in housing management through mainly two types of cooperatives:“house-leasing cooperative partnerships” (ZhAKTy) and “housing construction cooperative partnerships”(ZhSKTy: Zhilishchno-stroitel’nye kooperativnye tovarishchestva).4
In Moscow, selected as the main target area for our research, a different form of housing
management, “housing partnerships (Zhilishchnoe tavalishchestvo),” had been spreading since the early
1920s, and around half the inhabitants of Moscow lived under housing partnerships by the mid-1920s.5 In
addition, most large-scale houses were run by “housing trusts” (Zhilischchnye or Domovye tresty) under
the direct control of the Moscow Soviet. During the 1920s, bitter controversy persisted over which form of
housing management was most adequate for maintenance and preservation of houses. Finally, after policy
zigzagging from the end of the 1920s through the beginning of the 1930s, the decision of the Moscow City
Party Committee and the Moscow Soviet dated March 14, 1931 “On reorganization of housing
management and administration in Moscow city” judged ZhAKTy to be the most effective form, and allhouses under the housing partnerships and the majority of houses held by the housing trusts – over 55% of
the municipal housing in Moscow – were transferred to the ZhAKTy system.6
Through this process, the following management system for residential buildings owned by the
Moscow Soviet was established in the 1930s. Over ten thousand ZhAKTy took responsibility for managing
and controlling the majority of houses; housing trusts held suitable large-scale houses with good living
facilities under their control; and a small number of housing construction cooperative partnerships held asmall number of houses. This system lasted up until 1937, when the Soviet government decided that all

3

Bol’shaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia, Tom 25, M., 1932, pp.447-450.
Kommnal’noe khoziaistvo, No. 17, 1924, pp.88-91.
5Kommnal’noe khoziaistvo, No. 3, 1924, p.20.
6
Rabochaia moskva, March 17, 1931, p.3.
43

ZhAKTy and almost all ZhSKTy that had not yet completed repayment of monetary aid from official funds
would be liquidated and all municipal houses would be transferred to the direct control of local Soviets.7
The form of housing management continued to change after the Revolution, but these housingorganizations were expected to fulfill several basic functions in addition to maintenance and repair. The
first is the role of controlling the populace at the residence level, at the bottom of the power hierarchy. In
the 1930s, ZhAKTy and other housing organizations implemented the control of passports and ration books,
and the political mobilization of residents, especially women and children, to periodic festivals andmemorial events such as for the October Revolution, May Day, etc. These mobilization activities werecalled “cultural and mass work” (kul’turno-massovaia rabota). While housing organizations assumed therole of controlling and mobilizing residents, they also performed functions to supply basic services fordaily living, i.e. childcare facilities and communal laundries. This supply of services was called “culturaland daily living work” (kul’turno-bytovaia rabota). For this purpose, a “Cultural Committee” (kul’turnaia
kommisiia) or “Cultural and Daily Living Committee” (kul’turno-bytovaia kommisiia), whose members
comprised several representatives of the residents – in the NEP era “Cultural and Daily Living Cells”(kul’turno-bytovaia iacheika) – was organized in ZhAKTy and ZhSKTy, and “Support Councils” (sovety
sodeistvii) were formed in the housing trusts. The establishment of canteens was consistently included in
the activities of the committees or cells, although during the NEP period the scale and scope of work was
limited and it was almost impossible to realize community canteens, which required considerable moneyand equipment as well as available space. However, when the Revolution came to the fore and the foodcrisis reached a critical level, activities began for establishing community canteens (presently referred to as
self-managed canteens).

The birth and development of self-managed canteens
After analyzing a number of reports on the emerging movement of self-managed canteens,8 we wereable to confirm that they began in 1929, through the initiative of active housewives, and amongwhite-collar employees and intellectuals living in the city center (Tsentr), not in the raion where most
7

Resheniia partii i pravitel’stova po khoziaistvennym voprosam, Tom 2 (1929-1940 gody), M., 1967,
pp.617-627.
8
In the formative period of self-managed canteens, other names were often used – kukhnia stolov;
kollektivnye stolovye; Kommnal’naia stolovaia, etc. See RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.79, ll.3, 43;
Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No. 3, 1930, p.9; Zhilishchnaia kooperatsiia, No.5, 1929, p.33. Self-managed
canteens were also organized in dormitories, offices and small factories.
4manual workers lived.
For example, in Moscow, a self-managed canteen (No. 171), originally named “canteen
self-managed by housewives”, was established on March 8, 1929 on Trubnikovskii pereulok Nos. 4-6-8.
Another canteen located on Kolodeznaia ulitsa No. 7 was organized on September 23, 1929. Since a
number of reports in major journals basically coincide with regard to the year 1929, we conclude that thedate is historical fact.9
The question of why the canteens emerged in the year 1929 appears to be related to the second
initiative of the housewives. Both issues were deeply concerned with the grave food crisis caused by theforcible grain procurement policy and the introduction of the ration system in the Soviet Union. In 1928-29,
city residents were enrolled in consumption cooperatives and were obliged to acquire food and other daily
necessities at specified stores. However, the ration system did not secure reliable or easy purchase of goods
for the people. Long hours were spent standing in endless lines, which was one of the most distressing
aspects of daily life for the vast majority of working people as well as housewives.
The movement to establish community canteens started under these circumstances.10 Based on somerather fragmented information, we can assume that the establishment of the earliest canteens is as follows.
Several housewives, living in the same apartment and frequently encountering each other in the kitchen,developed a plan to gather together their ration books and then purchase goods and cook the food on acollective basis, by rotation.11 As they began receiving ration books from other residents, the canteens thatstarted with a few dozen people gradually expanded in scale and developed to the level of providing meals
for 250-300 residents.12 In the process, the housewives appear to have entered into negotiations with theauthorities, including consumption cooperatives, about the possibility of obtaining food under the same
9

TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.3, l.6; Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.5, 1930, p.3; Zhilishchnaia kooperatsiia,
No.5, 1929, p.33; No.23-24, 1931, p.22.
10
A report compiled by All-Union Council of Housing Cooperatives in 1932, referring to the fact that the
self-managed canteens project started in 1929, mentioned that “there existed the purpose of abolishing thelines accompanying the introduction of the individual ration system” as well as the famous slogan “theliberation of women from cooking in each family.” See RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.92, l.12.
11
An essay published in an early 1930 journal remarked, “Collective canteens were rapidly emerging inlarge-scale houses where housewives frequently encountered each other in the kitchen. It seems perfectly
natural that the idea emerged that housewives not go shopping separately and cook in front of a kerosene
heater, but that two or three housewives cook the food, by rotation. These canteens were named“self-managed canteens”. Around 20 canteens were organized in a short time in Moscow.” See
Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.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 andeconomy...under the leadership of veteran women cooks.” See Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.12, 1930,
p.11.
12
Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.12, 1930, p.11.
5

conditions as other public canteens, in short, the direct supply of food from cooperatives in exchange fortransferring collected ration books in a lump amount, and they succeeded in persuading administrators of
housing organizations to provide suitable canteen space and equipment.
What undoubtedly deserves attention is the fact that the residents were willing to hand over theirprecious ration books to the canteens, even considering the convenience of having a canteen in their own
residence. It would have been impossible to start this project and continue to run the canteens if there had
not existed this mutual trust based on communality, and the kind of public consciousness necessary forembarking on collective action to improve daily life, which is quite different from taking egoistic action for
an individual’s or single family’s survival. Indeed, the Soviet authorities appear to have paid close attention
to this project and gave or at least attempted to give material and other support. As early as 1929, andregularly since the beginning of 1930, the establishment and activities of self-managed canteens werediscussed in articles and essays appearing in several major journals, and in authorities’ archives.13 In
particular, Tsentrosoiuz and its subordinate organs paid more attention than other authorities to theresidents’ efforts, and issued a directive dated June 7, 1930 whereby local consumer cooperatives were todeliver staples and food in short supply to self-managed canteens at wholesale prices, directly from thefood bases of cooperatives, sometimes adding as much as 10–20% to the total amount of ration books
collected.14 Thus, the Tsentrosoiuz tried to provide an incentive to the canteen project, although additional
food supply and other incentives depended on the region, and the transfer of individual ration books was
mandatory, as mentioned: “Self-managed canteens acquire an additional amount of food according toconfirmed norms, but the operation of canteens must be based on food supply through ration books handed
over by the canteen users themselves”.15
The issue of incentives is likely related to the fact that most canteens were located not in the workers’
raion, but in the city center (Tsntr) and, therefore, the social strata of users was generally that ofwhite-collar employees.16 While production workers, in particular those in key industries, received a
13

We find some mention of canteens run at the residence level in Zhilishchnaia kooperatsiia, a organ of
VSZhK and Tsentrozhilsoiuz, of 1929, although the name varies. See Zhilishchnaia kooperatsiia, No.5,
1929, p.33; No. 9, p.24; No.16, p.14; No.21, p.10; No.22, p.31, passim. As far as I know, the earliest
mention of canteens referred to as self-managed is found in one of the agendas of an Organizational bureau
meeting on January 21, 1930 held under Tsentrosoiuz preparing for the All-Union Conference of Public
Dining. See RGAE, f.484, op.15, d.18, l.238.
14
GARF, f. 5452, op.14, d.68, ll.142,145; Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.3, 1930, p.9; Zhilishchnaia
kooperatsiia, No.18, 1931, p.28.
15
Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No. 13, 1930, s. 13.
16
An investigation of Moscow’s self-managed canteens revealed that “they were mostly located in the6relatively large amount of food compared to the population from other social strata, and had access tocanteens set up in the factories, ordinary white-collar employees held a lower position within the
consumption hierarchy and endured limited access to public canteens. Therefore, the establishment ofself-managed canteens accompanied by incentives would have provided a definite advantage and attraction
for a stratum such as white-collar employees. In fact, Soviet authorities often expressed some concern
about this. The handwritten document “On the work of self-managed canteens”, which was included in afile of the Tsentrosoiuz, expressed the following criticism: “Self-managed canteens have been organized
spontaneously (stikhinno), without any planning and particularly in some areas that are not workers’ raion,
which shows the lack of class approach in this project. Many canteens have been organized based solely on
the preference for receiving an additional amount of short-supply food.”17 The same opinion was publicly
proclaimed in the central organ for public dining. “They [self-managed canteens] for the most part emerged
during the last few months in Moscow. Unfortunately, there are fewer in the workers’ residences, and anincreasing number of canteens are being set up for the purpose of receiving additional collective ration
books that the Moscow Provincial Union of Consumer Associations (MOSPO) provides as incentives.”18
In response to this evaluation of the canteen project, M.F. Lozhechkina, a member of the directors’board of Tsentrozhilsoiuz, issued the following rebuttal: “Self-managed canteens are generally not includedin planned distribution and are not given collective ration books… Furthermore, they often fall undersuspicion of being organized exclusively for the purpose of acquiring ‘additional distribution’, an
additional ration book above [the total amount of] individual ones handed over by each canteen participant.
It is then forgotten that workers and employees who usually eat in public canteens also receive a surplus
above their individual ration books. [Therefore] such an approach to self-managed canteens is completely
wrong.”19
Tentr and a majority of their users were white-collar employees in terms of social composition.” See GARF,
f. 5452, op.14, d.68, l.151. Another article analyzing Moscow’s self-managed canteens mentioned, “80% of
canteens users were white-collar employees, as against workers solely 20%.” See Zhilishchnaia
kooperatsiia, No.23-24, 1931, p.20. A Moscow newspaper reported, “There were no self-managed
canteens” in some raions where many workers lived, especially in Stalinskii raion and Proletarskii raion.
See Vecherniaia Moskva, May 18, 1932, p.2.
17
RGAE, f. 484, op.8, d.843, l.7.
18
Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.5, 1930, p.2. This “defect” remained an unsolved problem thereafter. The
first All-Union Conference on Self-Managed Canteens held by Vsekoopit (All-Union Autonomous Sectionof Public Dining under Tentrosoiuz) in February 1932 referred in the resolution to the smaller proportion ofworkers and their families in all users as a defect of the canteens, the reason attributed to “the lack ofcontrol over the social composition of users.” See RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.92, l.45ob.
19
Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.5, 1930, p.6. The tendency toward fewer self-managed canteens in theworkers’ raion was explained by other factors. An investigative report presented by a branch of the7

Yet the Soviet authorities, in general, welcomed the project of self-managed canteens, and showed apositive attitude in promoting them, including the promise of material support. The Presidium of theCentral Control Commission of the Party and the Council of Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate of the
USSR in a decision dated March 23, 1930 “On the situation and perspectives of public dining” emphasizedthat “all organizations must give maximized support in order to develop the network of self-managed
canteens in house communes, ZhAKTy and housing partnerships for the purpose of bringing workers’
families to public dining halls,” and in a plenary meeting on April 23, 1930, the Moscow Soviet confirmedthat “Public dining was one way to raise the material and cultural level of working masses and to liberate
working women from the influence of the old life” and proposed that “MOSPO take over the leadership ofdeveloping new branches of self-managed canteens.”20
As partly revealed in the decisions mentioned above, the Soviet authorities found significance in thecanteens’ movement from several viewpoints. One was the imperative to expand public dining facilities.
Since the food crisis brought about the need for efficient product distribution through the public dining
system, the authorities expected the development of self-managed canteens that would “mitigate thepressure on public canteens unable to deal with growing demands.”21 And, as commented, that “bringing
cultural and daily living facilities closer to houses would contribute to improving the living conditions ofmale and female workers and to raising labor productivity,” the self-managed canteens could be also
evaluated from the viewpoint of production.22 Beyond these viewpoints, however, a distinctive social
mood growing under the so-called Cultural Revolution appears to have played a much more significant rolein evaluating and promoting self-managed canteens. After the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks
continued to discuss their plan for “socialization of daily life” or “collectivization of daily life” to liberate
women from domestic affairs, and theorists and activists of housing cooperatives shared the general idea.
Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate attributed one reason to the difference in housing conditions between
the central city and the workers’ raion. “In the city center, many residential buildings have spaces for storesand warehouses for keeping warm, which enables allocation for canteen space and kitchens. This is not thecase in the workers’ raion.” See Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.12, 1930, p.10. Another reason could be thatin the city center there existed many specialists and intellectuals presumably needed to draw up the plans
for the canteens and managing them.
20
GARF, f.5452, op.14, d.67, l.113ob; D. 66, ll.74-74 ob.
21
Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.12, 1930, p.10. Begge, Chairperson of the Board of Directors of All-Union
Association of Public Dining (Vsenarpit: Vsesoiuznoe ob’edinenie po obshchestvennomu pitaniiu), who
supervised the canteen project in those days, stated at a board meeting on January 13, 1931, “Thedevelopment of self-managed canteens would mitigate the jam in the network of public canteens,” although
he demonstrated a considerably passive attitude towards supporting them. See RGAE, f.484, op.15, d.19,
l.48.
22
RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.13, l.182.
8

Under the circumstances of the Cultural Revolution in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the canteen
construction project was a huge step toward realizing collectivization of daily life, in particular theliberation of women from the kitchen. Rozhechikina argued, “Public canteens located in houses in which
working people live have great significance. The experience with self-managed canteens … shows that they
are becoming the basic hearth of domestic communes, and are contributing to the liberation of women
working on production and housewives from domestic work and affairs. The organization of these canteenspromotes activities for housewives – it is the first practical school for housewives to participate in publicand cultural work.”23
The self-managed canteens, however, were favorably evaluated not just from the ideal or utopian
point of view, but also from the practical one. That was the imperative to attract women to production interms of radical industrialization and the subsequent lack of labor force. Although at production sites andfactories, many male workers and lower-ranking directors offered unceasing opposition, from the end of1930, drawing women into production on a massive scale became one of the regime’s fundamental policies,
to be realized without hesitation.24 To fulfill the policy, it was crucial to expand living facilities at theresidence level and establish canteens together with childcare facilities and communal laundries, etc. The
All-Union Conference of Women’s Labor and Life held on February 1, 1931 declared, “The introduction of
women laborers to industries became the most important nationwide task.” And, according to one of thearticles, a basic condition for attracting women to industries was the development of a network of publicdining with unprecedented speed together with childcare facilities.25 Several remarks were made about
self-managed canteens being necessary for the introduction of women to public activities in general as wellas to production.26
Housing organizations, including ZhAKTy and their associations on the raion level, were provided
with a sort of vanguard position for drawing women into production. The Tsentrozhilsoiuz in RSFSR
presented the control figures for the mobilization of women living in housing cooperatives under its
supervision: 300,000 in 1931 and 400,000 in 1932, although they were unable to reach the target figures.
The main reason was the conspicuous delay in constructing living facilities.27 In Moscow, the same effort
23

Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No. 5, 1930, s. 6.
Wendy Z. Goldman, Women at the Gates: Gender and Industry in Stalin’s Russia, Cambridge
University Press, 2002, chap.7.
25
Trud, February 1, 1931, p.4; February 2, 1931, p.3.
26
RGAE, f. 484, op.15, d.39, l.19.
27
Trud, October 1, 1931, p.4; Zhilishchnaia kooperatsiia, No.18, 1931, p.27; No.23-24, 1931, p.14.
24

9

was made. In 1931, the Moscow City Union of Housing Cooperatives argued that “housing cooperatives
must develop activities for attracting housewives to production” and presented the raion’s housing
associations and housing construction cooperative partnerships with the control figures for the fourth
quarter of 1931, which showed the number of women to be mobilized to production and the number ofself-managed canteens to be newly constructed for each raion. According to the figures, 59 self-managed
canteens in total, 30 in the ZhAKTy system and 29 in housing construction cooperative partnerships(ZhSKTy), had to be constructed.28 Considering the promotion of canteen construction, the authorities
attempted to establish a fund for renovating the space allocated for self-managed canteens and preparing
the equipment. For example, the control figures of RSFSR in 1932 allocated 5,64,000 rubles, 10% of thetotal budget for supply of cultural and daily living facilities at the residence level, to the construction of
canteens.29
In addition to the issue of control figures and funding, the Soviet authorities embarked on
institutionalizing the movement of self-managed canteens. As early as 1930, the public dining section of
the Tentrosoiuz undertook the development of a model charter, which included a plan to gather at least 15
housewives to manage canteens,30 yet the official publication was likely delayed due to conflict amongorganizations over the control of canteens, especially among the Tsentrosoiuz, the Commissariat of Foreignand Domestic Trade, and the Commissariat of Provisionment, and the subsequent reorganization ofconcerned organs for controlling public dining in general. Eventually, the Central Committee of the Party
issued the decision “On measures for improvement of public dining” in August 1931, that theCommissariat of Provisionment and subordinate organs, the Soiuznarpit (Chief Directorate of National
Dining) would supervise all canteens located in certain industrial centers, i.e. Moscow and Leningrad, andthe Tsentrosoiuz and subordinate organs, the Vsekoopit (All-Union Autonomous Section of Public Dining)would supervise canteens in other areas. Accordingly, the control of self-managed canteens was also
divided into two levels. Through a series of reorganizational processes, the directive board of the Vsekoopit,
Tsentrosoiuz and the VSZhK (the All-Union Council of Housing Cooperatives) issued a model charter for
self-managed canteens on November 5, and immediately afterward, the Soiuznarpit and the VSZhK did thesame.3128

TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.20, ll.1-3.
RGAE, f. 7754, op.1, d.91, l.11.
30
GARF, f.5452, op.14, d.65, ll.134-145ob., 174-176.
31
RGAE, f.484, op.15, d.21, ll.167-170; RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.92, ll.2-6. Both charters have the same
29

10

Around the same time, a model contract between the Vsekoopit or Soiuznarpit and the VSZhK, as
well as between their subordinate organs, was concluded to develop a concrete cooperative relationship andmutual support to promote the canteen project. These contracts included the following clauses: The housing
cooperatives shall provide canteens with space, main facilities (cooking stove, counters, etc.) and water, gas,
electricity and heating at wholesale prices; the consumer cooperatives or a branch of the Soiuznarpit shallprovide food through collective ration books and from outside of the queues (vne ocheredi); the canteensshall bear responsibility for collecting individual ration books, organizing users’ active involvement incanteen activities by rotation, and so on.32 Moreover, starting at the beginning of 1932, in order tocoordinate the activities of the organs concerned, a “Bureau of Self-Managed Canteens” was organized ateach level from Union level to raion. Representatives from the Party Committee, distribution organ, Trade
Union Council, mass media, and so on at each level were expected to join the Bureau.33 Additionally, withthe objective of exchanging accumulated experience among canteens and furthering their activities,
ALL-Union Conferences on Self-Managed Canteens were held under the auspices of the Tentrosoiuz in
February 1932 and under the auspices of the Soiuznarpit in April 1932.34
How far did this project spread in terms of the number of canteens? Since the movement started anddeveloped on a spontaneous basis, it was extremely difficult even for the authorities to grasp the actual
situation. To further complicate matters, self-managed canteens were sometimes organized at small offices
and factories, although basically they were set up in residences. In addition, apartment buildings weremanaged under different organizations including state enterprises, governmental agencies andmunicipalities, and even municipal housing was controlled under three housing organizations: housing
trusts, housing construction cooperatives partnerships (ZhSKTy) and house-leasing cooperative
partnerships (ZhAKTy). Moreover, canteens were supervised on two levels: the Vsekoopit and the
Soiuznarpit. Accordingly, since statistical figures on self-managed canteens are limited and fragmented, we
can only surmise the figures, relying on rather chaotic information.

Based on the above premise, we approach the issue of the number of self-managed canteens.
According to data from the Vsekoopit, 552 self-managed canteens were operating in RSFSR and 890
throughout the Soviet Union as of December 15, 1931. Other data from January 1, 1932 indicates thatbasic contents.
32
Zhilishchnaia kooperatsiia, No.23-24, 1931, p.15; Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.12, 1930, pp.11-12;
RGAE, f. 7754, Op. 1, D. 92, ll.7-9.
33
RGAE, f. 7754, Op. 1, D. 92, ll.22, 66, 71-72.
34
RGAE, f. 7754, Op. 1, D. 92, ll.21, 33, 45-46.
11

985 canteens were providing meals for 268,400 users in the USSR. Around a year later, the number at
the all-union level reached 1507, including 980 at residences and 527 at small factories and offices.35
On the other hand, according to the Soiuznarpit, which covered canteens in Moscow, Leningrad andother industrial centers, 220 self-managed canteens were operating as of January 1, 1932.36 It isdifficult to judge the accuracy of these figures, but it is known that the authorities were expecting amuch greater rate of expansion; their control figure for operation planning was 1496 canteens as ofJanuary 1, 1932, against the actual figure of 985. The fulfillment rate was 65.8%.37
Meanwhile, in Moscow, different reports presented varying figures ranging from 50 to 100
canteens, although notations are included about not having a full grasp of the number, particularly
because of canteens that were operating but not registered. According to an investigation conducted by
the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate, there were 55 canteens in Moscow in May 1930, and in June,at the time of the investigation, 68 canteens were operating.38 Furthermore, data from the Soiuznarpit
shows the presence of 75 canteens in Moscow as of January 1, 1932, and a Moscow newspaper dated
May 18, 1932 published a figure of 84.39 It is important to note that these figures might include
self-managed canteens located not only at residences, but also at factories, offices, dormitories, etc.
The following figures on canteens operating under the ZhAKTy system support this.
As explained earlier, the Moscow City Party Committee and the Moscow Soviet decided on
March 14, 1931 to transfer almost all the houses owned by housing partnerships to the ZhAKTy
system. At the time, 6 self-managed canteens operating under housing partnerships were alsotransferred to ZhAKTy,40 and the number increased to 11 by July 1932, to 12 by December 1932, andto 15 as of June 1, 1933. A central organ of the All-Union Association of Housing Cooperatives
reported that 20 self-managed canteens were operating under the ZhAKTy system in Moscow in
1933.41 According to various data, the number reached its peak in 1933 and subsequently declined.
Some reports show a figure of 8 in 1934 and 7 in October/November 1935. Since the figure as of 1935
35

RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.92, ll.29, 45; RGAE, f.484, op.15, d.55, l.16.
RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.92, l.42.
37
RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.92, l.45ob. Zhilishchnaia kooperatsiia presented a much more pathetic
figure. According to the RSFSR plan, 743 canteens should have been constructed within the year
1931, but as of September 1, 1931, only 37 canteens, 4.1%, opened. See Zhilishchnaia
kooperatsiia, No.18, 1931, p.28.
38
GARF, f.5452, op.14, d.71, l.127, d.73, l.142; Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.12, 1930, p.10.
39
RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.92, l.42; Vecherniaia Moskva, May 18, 1932, p.2.
40
TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.91, ll.4, 15.
41
TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.1, l.16, d.91, ll.4, 8, 42; Zhilishchnaia kooperatsiia, No.12, 1933,
p.18.
36

12

was based on an investigation of cultural and daily living facilities that was carried out in almost all
the sub-raions in Moscow, the data is considered to be reliable.42
Collecting relevant data on canteens in other housing organizations (ZhSKTy and housing
trusts) is more difficult. At least seven self-managed canteens appear to have been operating under the
ZhSKTy system in 1932,43 and 6 canteens as of January 1, 1936 and 2 canteens as of January 1, 1937
existed under the auspices of housing trusts. The data from the housing trusts is considered reliable as
it covers a broad range of detailed information including the number of houses, residents, social
composition, etc. as well as the number of cultural and daily living facilities including canteens.44
The 1939 and 1940 Moscow telephone directories list the telephone numbers of two
self-managed canteens: No. 155 on Lebiazhii pereulok No. 8/4 and No. 172 on Chistyi pereulok No. 6.
Other self-managed canteens equipped with a telephone are not listed, so the directories are notall-inclusive.45 However, by the end of the 1930s, the number of self-managed canteens located at
residences in Moscow probably did not exceed ten.
The above information leads us to the following conclusion. In spite of the authorities’ positiveand supportive attitude toward the self-managed canteen project and their attempts to institutionalize
bottom-up initiative, the total number of canteens in Moscow never exceeded a hundred even at its
peak in the early 1930s, and only about 20–30 canteens were operating at the residence level. In short,
this project did not expand in scope as expected.
What is the reason behind the limited expansion? Needless to say, establishing and managing acanteen was an extraordinarily harsh business in contemporary Soviet society. Obtaining food andacquiring and renovating space took tremendous effort. With respect to space, there is frequentmention of the fact that the directors’ board of each housing organization and the residents themselves
disliked allocating space for canteens. The severe shortage of residential space naturally led to theconclusion that any surplus should be allocated to residents, not to canteens, even if the space was
42

TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.584, l.4; op.3, d.42, ll.31, 35, 87, 97, 122, 127, 139. The figure as of1935 (7 canteens) was calculated based on data acquired from 47 of the 48 sub-raions, excluding adata sheet presented from one raion. Because this sheet noted only the number of canteens in theraion without any other concrete data, such as space, number of users, and so on, it did not appear
reliable. If this data were to be included, the total number of canteens as of 1935 would be 10.
43
RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.91, l.2.
44
TsMAM, f.490, op.1, d.2, l.42; d.3, l.52ob.
45
Spisok abonentov moskovskoi gorodskoi telefonnoi seti, 1939 g., M., 1939, p.442; Spisok
abonentov gorogskoi telefonnoi seti, 1940 g., M., 1940, p.501. Canteen No.171, as later mentioned,
was still operating in 1940 and was equipped with its own telephone, but was not noted in the
directories.
13

located underground and not suitable as living quarters.46 There are reported cases of local Soviets
confiscating space in which a canteen was operating. 47 Also, the acquisition of space did notguarantee the opening of a canteen. Surplus space was generally inadequate for a canteen, not tomention for living, without renovation. In addition, cooking and serving equipment was needed. Many
activists working to open their own canteen encountered the even more complex problem of procuringlabor, housing materials and funds. In some cases, a certain amount of money could be obtained fromthe cultural and daily living fund set up by the Soviet authorities. However, the shortage of housingmaterials frustrated the effective use of this money.48 Some activists set up their canteens by obtaining
funds from local businesses in exchange for receiving their employees as users. As a result, they
became subordinate-like canteens of those companies.49
First, however, the acquisition of food was the most difficult task. A directive issued on June 7,
1930 by the Tsentrosoiuz, which stipulates that canteens be provided with food from surplus supply
directly from food bases, was often ignored in local areas. A conference was held on August 15, 1930,
in which representatives of Tsntrosoiuz, Vsenarpit, the Moscow Provincial Association of Consumer
Cooperatives (MOSPO), housing cooperatives and activists of self-managed canteens discussed avariety of problems facing the canteens, especially the issue of food supply. “The important thing inmanaging canteens is supply. Without additional food supply, canteens cannot exist.” But the focal
point of the discussion was that the directive was unknown at the lower level, and consumer
cooperatives on the raion level resisted fixing canteens to their food bases.50 One article pointed out
the same phenomenon: “MOSPO is obliged to supply food to self-managed canteens from its own key
storehouses. Sometimes that obligation is not fulfilled. Sokol’niki raion’s Association of Consumer
Cooperatives, for example, declared that it knew nothing about such a decision and at any rate was not
obliged to obey it.”51
An enormous number of complaints about unsupportive consumer cooperatives flooded the46

Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.12, 1930, p.10; TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.91, l.49.
RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.92, l.33.
48
On financial difficulties, see Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.3, 1930, p.9. It was reported that
“Self-managed canteens could not obtain the necessary kitchen equipment even through their own
funds.” (Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.12, 1930, p.10) Public canteens were generally not able toreach the year’s control figure due to the shortage of housing materials and equipment. See Trud,
December 6, 1931, p.2.
49
TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.91, l.5.
50
GARF, f.5452, op.14, d.68, ll.142-152.
51
Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.12, 1930, p.10.
4714

authorities concerned. In response, however, one city Narpit replied: “You are supposed to be aself-managed collective; if so, you must get out of your predicament in a self-managed way (vporiadke samodeiatel’nosti) however you like. We have nothing to give you.”52 On August 24, 1931,
the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate in the Moscow Frunze raion, receiving an appeal fromself-managed canteen No. 14 against the decision of the complaint bureau, decided as follows: “Thedecision of the complaint bureau dated 31 July [1931] shall be repealed… It shall be considerednecessary to provide additional supply of food on the same basis as other canteens.”53 This casesuggests that there might have been other instances in which the Tsentrosoiuz directive was nominal.
There are numerous reported cases of cooperatives not supplying food, even in exchange for ration
books, as well as additional supply.54
The Soviet authorities themselves were unable to provide sufficient material support under theworsening food crisis. At a meeting of the directors’ board of the All-Union Association of Public
Dining (Vsenarpit), Begge frankly expressed that “We must develop self-managed canteens andprovide some support, for example, in the form of equipment or credit. [But] With respect to food, we
probably could not provide anything, especially food in short supply. Canteens would have to rely on
ration cards only.”55
As the famine extended and the food situation deteriorated even in the major cities, the Soviet
authorities had little room to provide material support to the canteen project. The Plan for theDevelopment of Self-Managed Canteens, compiled by the Vsekoopit administration and dated March
21, 1933, enumerated resources from which self-managed canteens should obtain food: a) byswitching individual food allocation [to canteens], b) by their own auxiliary food production, c) by
self-procurement and through collective farm markets.56 In short, the mention of additional foodsupply vanished. Food support to canteens was nearly impossible during the food crisis, which wasreflected in the number of canteens. The situation in Moscow province under the Vsekoopit, which
differed from that in Moscow city under the Soiuznarpit, worsened dramatically. While the number ofcanteens was 11 in December 1932 and 14 as of January 1, 1932, only one canteen remained as of

52

RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.92, l.33.
TsMAM, f.1474, op.7, d.213, l.140.
54
GARF, f.5452, op.14, d.73, l.142.
55
RGAE, f.484, op.15, d.19, l.48.
56
RGAE, f.484, op.15, d.55, l.15.
53

15

January 1, 1933.57 Within one year, the self-managed canteen project was destroyed there. Judging
from the years 1932-33, it is obvious that the food crisis led to the termination of canteens.
Self-managed canteens in industrial centers under the Soiuznarpit might have enjoyed arelatively more favorable situation. However, as the figures show, even in Moscow the project was
unable to expand and, after its peak in 1933, the number of canteens decreased. Further after 1935, as
the ration system was abolished step-by-step, interest in the project itself appears to have declined. We
could not find any mention of it in official journals or newspapers. The reason is clear: Soviet people
were eventually able to purchase food freely, even though prices climbed dramatically. With theofficial revival of the free market and the reduced dependence on canteens, many public canteens,
including those in factories and offices, closed down.
Under these circumstances, it might appear unnecessary to further investigate the canteen
movement. Expansion of this project was certainly limited. However, the focal point here is not the
number of canteens, but the collaboration between authorities and citizens, the cooperation amongresidents, and the possible creation of a community and micro-public sphere through this self-managed
canteen project. Accordingly, there remains some room to examine the movement in depth. In
particular, the difference between areas in the development of the canteen project is very important.
For example, in Moscow’s Frunze raion and its successive raions (in April 1936, raions were
reshuffled), more energy was put into this project in the formative period and through the 1930s. In thecourse of the 1930s, especially after 1935, most canteens in other raions closed down, but someremained in Frunze and successive raions into the 1940s. What factors contributed to the difference?
To answer this question, we need to examine the canteens themselves.

Cases examples in Frunze raion
Frunze raion, renamed from Khamovniki in 1930, was one of 10 raions in Moscow in the firsthalf of the 1930s. It included Arbat, one of the most famous streets in Moscow, and the vicinity. Whenthe 10 raions were reshuffled in April 1936, the northern part of the Frunze raion across the present
New Arbat Street, which was not yet constructed at the time, was incorporated into the
Krasno-presnensk raion, Albat and the vicinity was included in a newly constructed district, Kiev

57

RGAE, f.7754, op.1, d.92, l.29; f.484, op.15, d.55, l.13.
16

raion, and the rest of the area remained in the new Frunze raion.58 A number of reference materials
list around a dozen streets on which self-managed canteens were located, and a considerable numberof them were registered in the Frunze raion. For example, Nos. 30, 35, 51, 52 on Arbat Street,
Bol’shaia Molchanovka No. 21/a, Lebiazhii pereulok No. 4/8, Skaternyi pereulok No. 11,
Trubnikovskii pereulok No. 3 and Nos. 4-6-8, Chistoi pereulok No. 6 and so on.59 A central organ of
the public dining section of the Tsentrosoiuz, Obshchestovennoe pitanie, published a photograph of aself-managed canteen located at No. 51 Arbat Street with the caption “The first self-managed canteen
established in Moscow.”60
Available data on self-managed canteens in the Frunze raion is introduced in this section. In
April 1933, at the peak of the movement, 17 canteens were operating there.61 Frunze Narpit, agovernmental agency for public dining in the Frunze raion, presented the following figures oncanteens: 13 in 1931, 17 in 1932, and 18 in 1933.62 Since the total number of self-managed canteensin Moscow at the time was around seventy or eighty, not over a hundred, we contend that those in
Frunze had considerable importance in this project. In addition, since the mid-1930s, the persistence ofthe movement in Frunze is even more noteworthy. In 1934, as mentioned before, only 8 canteensremained under the ZhAKTy system, half of which were located in Frunze. According to theALL-raions investigation, 7 canteens in total were operating under the ZhAKTy system, 2 of whichwere in Frunze. Although the total number of canteens notably decreased, those in Frunze appear tohave continued operating up until 1940.63 When the 1939 and 1940 Moscow telephone directories
listed two self-managed canteens, both addresses – Lebiazhii pereulok No. 4/8 and Chistoi pereulok
No. 6 – were located in the former Frunze raion.64
58

TsMAM, f.1495, op.3, d.746, ll.40, 42, 49, 59, 81, 106-122.On the reorganization of Moscow’s
districts, see Timothy J. Colton, Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis, Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press, 1995, pp.182-185, 303-304; Nobuo Shimotomai, Moscow under
Stalinist rule, 1931-34, Macmillan, 1991, chap.4.
59
TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.91, l.42; f.1474, op.7, d.209, l.8ob.; Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.9,
1930, p.17.
60
Obshchestvennoe pitanie, No.12, 1930, p.12.
61
Vechernaia moskva, April 28, 1933, p.2.
62
Frunzenskii trest <Narpit>, Obshchestvennnoe pitanie frunzenskogo raiona ot ⅩⅡ k ⅩⅢraionnoi partkonferentsii, M., 1934, p.8.
63
TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.584, l.4; op.3, d.42, ll.31, 35, 87, 97, 122, 127, 139.
64
Spisok abonentov moskovskoi gorodskoi telefonnoi seti, 1939 g., M., 1939, p.442; Spisok
abonentov gorogskoi telefonnoi seti, 1940 g., M., 1940, p.501. Other materials indicate theimportance of the Frunze raion. According to the plan for new construction and renovation ofcultural and daily living facilities under ZhAKTy in 1935, in the ten raions of Moscow, 5 canteens– 3 in Frunze and 2 in Krasono-presnensk – were to be newly constructed, but as of January 1,
17

Why was the Frunze raion more active in the movement in the early 1930s than other districts
in Moscow, and some of the canteens there were able to continue operating up until 1940? It’s adifficult question to answer, but I will make an attempt to approach this issue based on some relevantmaterials.
On April 28, 1933, the Vechernaia Moskva reported on the development of self-managed
canteens in Frunze raion, expressing admiration, and attributed the difference from those in other
districts to successful organization of the raion’s bureau under the ZhAKTy system. The bureau
allegedly played a core role by coordinating the operation of canteens. For example, the raion’s
self-managed canteens as a whole succeeded in collecting advance payment of 110,000 rubles from its
users, and through a contract that the bureau concluded with the raion’s Narpit, canteens could receive
15% of the food that the Narpit procured without any plans. Moreover, the canteens collectively
acquired 30 hectares of farming land in Kuntsevo, on the outskirts of Moscow city, and were growing
livestock and vegetables. The report concluded as follows: “How many such hearths of new life are
there in Moscow? This is a riddle for the Narpit and housing organizations. Nobody planned suchcanteens, and they are emerging by themselves. This is not wrong. But it is very wrong that no one isproviding guidance or support. The Frunze bureau is the first step to reinforcing “self-managed
Narpit” in terms of management and organization… A few years ago, the same bureau existed in all
raions. The all-city basis was a sound system, but they somehow managed to ruin it. It is not important
to know the reason, but it is important to revive this system. All the raions of Moscow must follow thelead of Frunze. Moscow’s Narpit and housing organizations must support them.”65
Frunze’s Narpit, the counterpart with which the Frunze bureau concluded the contract, might
have carried off another core function in the growth of self-managed canteens in this district. In 1934,
referring to the development of canteens in Frunze, the Narpit printed 2000 copies (not for sale) of apamphlet introducing its activities and displaying many photographs. Included were data and1936, only 2 canteens in Frunze and 1 in Krasono-presnensk actually opened. See TsMAM, f.1495,
op.1, d.568, l.11. A similar construction and renovation plan based on the new district system in1936 shows that only one canteen was to be constructed in Frunze, and five canteens – one each in
Frunze, Kiev and Kranoso-gvarudiia raions and two in Krasno-presnensk raion were to berenovated. It is uncertain whether or not the latter two in Krasono-presnensk were located in theformer Frunze raion. However, the proportion in the former Frunze raion is large, including one in
Kiev raion. See TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.568, l.11; d.830, l.109ob.-110.
65
Vechernaia Moskva, April 28, 1933, p.2. The Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate in Frunze
raion had critically investigated an unsuccessful livestock project conducted by a ZhAKTy
housing association located in Frunze raion. This case possibly supports the omnipresence of suchprojects in Frunze raion. See TsMAM, f.1474, op.7, d.213, ll.4-5.
18

photographs of self-managed canteens located in Frunze raion, indicating that Frunze’s Narpit most
likely demonstrated a positive and supportive attitude toward the movement.66
Judging from the establishment of the raion’s bureau and the Narpit’s positive attitude, itappears that the Frunze authorities developed relatively well-coordinated activities as well as afavorable relationship with the canteens. We are able to confirm this through the analysis of twocanteens: one organized under ZhAKT No. 470 and the other – canteen No. 171 – organized under
ZhAKT No. 56 (thereafter renumbered 1454).

Canteen on Skatertnyi pereulok No. 11
The self-managed canteen under ZhAKT No. 470 was established at Skatertnyi pereulok No. 11
in Frunze raion (in April 1936, the pereulok was incorporated in the Krasno-presnensk raion). Thisapartment building was controlled under a housing trust until 1931, at which time it was transferred to
the ZhAKTy system in accordance with the decision of the Moscow City Party Committee and the
Moscow Soviet. According to the data from 1936, ZhAKT No. 470, which was of medium size, had apopulation of 238, 1782 m2 of living space and 254 m2 of other space.67 Here, at the end of 1932, was
one self-managed canteen, and on a day in 1933 it served a total of 255 meals for 91 workers and theirfamilies, 57 employees and their families and 20 pensioners. Local residents were among the users
because the plan for this canteen originated from leading activists working in a cultural committee
established by several apartment buildings including Skatertnyi pereulok No. 11. However, the project
was stymied during the transfer to the ZhAKTy system. Eventually, a newly formed network ofcultural work across multiple buildings, the “First Cultural and Daily Living Section”, was organized
and it contributed to raising funds from residents for the canteen.
With respect to its construction, a leading activist of this movement – he called himself Chotti –wrote a few dozen pages of memorandum, which were kept in a Moscow archive. Chotti was a leading
member of the cultural committee and might have been a party member as a leader of the MOPR
(international organization for aid to soldiers of the revolution) in this area. The fact that a member ofthe cultural committee wrote a memorandum, in which reference is made to a colleague drawing a
blueprint of the canteen, indicates that intellectual committee members took initiative in establishing
66

Frunzenskii trest <Narpit>, op. cit. I was unable to find any similar pamphlets printed by the
Narpit of other raions.
67
TsMAM, f.1495, op.3, d.746, l.81.
19the canteen, although self-managed canteens in general were allegedly organized by housewives.
Based on this memorandum, we obtain a picture of the clear-cut framework of confrontation
between cultural activists, including Chotti, attempting to set up a canteen and their opposition,
including the chairman of ZhAKT No. 470. The latter, assuming that it would be impossible tomanage a canteen due to the difficulty of obtaining food, insisted on allocating the space for aresidence, not for a canteen, although earlier, the residents had decided to set up a canteen in this space.
According to Chotti, even after the construction of the canteen started, the chairman and his entourage
not only refused to provide support, but they actually interfered with the work. However, Chotti andother activists, appealing to the raion’s Party Committee and other authorities, continued with theconstruction.
In his memorandum, Chotti repeatedly expresses his gratitude to the Frunze housing association,
which warmly welcomed their canteen project and provided material support. Several leaders of the
housing association paid a visit to the construction site and donated 1355 rubles. On the contrary,
Albat sub-raion’s housing association generally displayed a passive attitude toward the project. The
reorganization of housing associations in 1932 resulted in transferring the real power in managing
ZhAKTy from the raion to the sub-raion level. And that, Chotti emphasizes, placed the canteen
project in jeopardy, delaying its construction and the opening. However, as mentioned before, the First
Cultural and Daily Living Section, organized across apartment buildings and officially approved by
the Moscow City Union of Housing Associations in September 1932, embarked on active support, andat the final stage, residents provided 3000 rubles. Thus, the self-managed canteen in Skatertnyi
perulok No. 11 reached its opening day by the end of 1932.68
Another interesting point, besides the description of confrontations in this memorandum, isChotti’s remarks that reveal how the construction and management of their canteen was combinedwith a manifestation of public spirit among the residents. For instance, retorting against criticism fromthe opposition regarding the delay in construction, Chotti wrote “It must not be forgotten that the
public (obshchestvennost’), who [are able to] spare time for this project only by freeing up hours fromtheir work, is constructing the canteen.”69 And, expressing his deep concern that the position taken by
official organizations such as the Arbat sub-raion housing association attempting to gain strict control
68
69

TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.91, ll.48-63.
TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.91, l.60ob.
20over the canteen not be brought to light, he contends that: “The fundamental idea of the self-managed
canteen – that is complete establishment of canteen members’ active participation in its management
and in the practice of public control, and their participation in the canteen according to their ability.
Only through these means is it possible to achieve maximized economy of canteen funds,
improvement of meal quality, and reduced lunch prices. Consistent practice of these principles would
enable the transformation of self-managed canteens into accessible, attractive and comfortablecanteens for members of ZhAKTy… From this, it is obvious that the canteen must be managed by the
public (obshchestvennost’) on the spot under the leadership of the Council of the First Cultural Section
and its fractions. The management of all self-managed canteens would be constructed according to thisprinciple, and hence the canteen of the First Cultural Section cannot be the exception to this principle.
It is necessary to bring to an end the administrative control system in cooperative housingorganizations, which still exists in apartment buildings under housing trusts. In the management
system of ZhAKTy, cooperativeness and publicness (kooperativnost’ i sviazannaia s neiu
obshchestvennost’) is an imperative for its development…Solely under those conditions is the canteen
worthy of its name, self-managed and public (obshchestvennaia).” 70
It is crucial that this argument was uttered not by a top leader or an ideologue of the Party, but
by an activist who was working to establish a canteen at the residence level. Thus, considering theorganizational process of the self-managed canteen, the enormous energy and effort put into theproject by activists living in the residence and the psychological and material support from theauthorities were indispensable to its development.

Canteen No. 171 at Trubnikovskii pereulok Nos. 4-6-8
Canteen No. 171 was one of the earliest canteens established, as indicated by an article in theZhilishchnaia kooperatsiia on March 15, 1929, which refers to a “communal canteen” located on
Trubnikovskii pereulok No. 6.71 This canteen also lasted for a longer time than the others, operating
until 1940. When the canteen closed, a series of materials collected by the liquidation committee wasturned over to the government archives, providing us with information on various canteen activities.
According to data from the five files of archived material, the canteen was formally established on
70
71

TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.91, ll.64-64ob.
Zhilishchnaia kooperatsiia, No.5, 1929, p.33.
21

March 8, 1929 and was closed on the decision of canteen members at a general meeting held on June
17, 1940, a week after the Presidium of Kiev raion’s Soviet approved the decision to liquidate Canteen
No. 171.72
The five files include little material on the early years of the canteen except for some items from
1931 related to employee wages. Wage slips dated July 1931 indicate that only two or three cooking
staff were employed at the time, and additional support was provided by a few “women activists(aktivisty obshchestvennitsy)” in exchange for the small amount of 40–60 rubles a month. However,from the latter part of 1932, the canteen consistently employed at least 10 people, including a director(350 rubles a month in 1940), an accountant (400 rubles), and a chief cook (400 rubles).73 Thus, thecanteen’s business continued to expand even in the early 1930s during the food crisis and further after
the ration system was abolished in 1935. Other materials from the archive confirm the canteen’s stable
growth during the 1930s, although it experienced an interruption in 1936. Gross sales rose from91,228 rubles in 1934 to 155,179 rubles in 1935; to 249,115 rubles in 1937; to 269,178 rubles in 1938;
and to 323,854 rubles in 1939. The total amount of soup and main dishes supplied each year rosesteadily until 1937 and then slightly declined in 1938: 74,196 in 1934; 108,518 in 1935; 149,984 in
1937; and 136,000 in 1938 (1939 data not available).74 The number of registered canteen users andthe amount of money deposited was also stable: 404 people and 3654 rubles as of January 1, 1934;449 and 4432 as of January 1, 1935; 494 and 4409.5 as of January 1, 1936; 492 and 4409.5 as ofJanuary 1, 1937; 483 and 4262.5 as of January 1, 1938; and 480 and 4189.5 as of January 1, 1939.75
Also noteworthy is the reestablishment of the canteen’s position in the local community,
especially after the ZhAKTy system came to an end in October 1937. The residents’ loss of autonomy,
however limited, led to the general stagnation of cultural and daily living activities, as mentioned in
Moscow’s newspapers at the time.76 But the residents at Trubnikovskii pereulok Nos. 4-6-8, where
Canteen No. 171 was located, and residents in the vicinity worked together to organize a new culturaland daily living committee (CDLC). On April 5, 1938, residents from the sixty-one apartments in thesix buildings of Trubnikovskii pereulok Nos. 4-6-8 and Durnovskii pereulok Nos. 1-1a-3, held ameeting at which they approved the Organizational Committee’s proposal to establish the CDLC, with
72

TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.3, ll.6, 40-42; d.4, l.15ob.
TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.1, ll.1-28, d.3, l.38.
74
TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.2 ll.5-6, 29, 49, 73, 78.
75
TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.2, ll.23, 36, 59, 63.
76
Rabochaia moskva, 9 December 1937, p.4; Vechernaia moskva, 15 June 1940, p.2.
73

22

six subsections (Culture, Movie, Library, Physical Culture, Hygiene, and Canteen) and a comrade
tribunal, and elected their members. In short, the establishment of the new CDLC in 1938 meant that
Canteen No. 171 would operate under the Canteen Section of the Committee.77
The “Regulation of Self-Managed Canteen No. 171”, which was confirmed at a regular CDLC
meeting on February 6, 1939, followed by submission for approval by the raion’s authorities, includes
some significant clauses on the position and role of the canteen as well as its relationship with
CDLC.78 The first of the ten clauses in the regulation states: “Canteen No. 171 is a public enterprise(obshchestvennoe predpriiatie) of CDLC, operating on the basis of cost accounting with anindependent balance and having a current account with the State Savings Bank under the name
CDLC.”79 The term “public enterprise” might refer to the third-sector Soviet type, considering its
parallel use with the terms “state enterprise” and “cooperative enterprise” as choices in filling out
documents for tax registration.80 Skipping the second clause and moving on to the third one, whichrefers to the main role of the canteen as a meal service provider, it is most interesting to note thatcanteen users comprised not only the residents concerned, but also personnel from the local Snegirev
Hospital at Sabachiia ploshchad’ No. 1. In short, the canteen played a role in supporting the hospital, acommunity facility indispensable in the residents’ lives. The fourth clause covers finances for
managing the canteen, such as funds from CDLC and profit from the canteen, and the fifth to eighthclauses stipulate the required level of competence for a canteen director, who “is appointed anddismissed by CDLC (fifth clause),” as follows: “He shall control, in accordance with the law, all funds
and property of the canteen; hire and dismiss employees of the canteen excluding the accountant who
is appointed and dismissed by CDLC; conclude contracts and arrangements necessary for managementof the canteen…(sixth clause); prepare quarterly and yearly balance reports for ratification by the
CDLC (seventh clause); and bear responsibility for all operations of the canteen and for disciplines interms of planning, financing and contracting on the laws concerned (eighth clause).” The ninth clausespecifies investigations and inspections of the canteen conducted by CDLC, and the final clause
77

Actually, the Canteen Section might not have played such a definite role. A protocol from the
Cultural and Daily Living Committee meeting held on April 11, 1939 mentioned that “As theCanteen Section had not worked and was not working, Chairperson Rakhmanov should inspectaccounts until a new leader of the Canteen Section is appointed.” See TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.3,
l.11. Management of the canteen was basically placed under the charge of G.P. Rakhmanov, a
CDLC chairperson and the canteen’s director.
78
TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.3, l.18.
79
TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.3, l.20.
80
TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.3, l.6.
23

stipulates that “the canteen shall stop operation in accordance with the procedure set forth by CDLC
and confirmed at a general meeting of residents”.81 In summary, Canteen No. 171 was a public
enterprise that CDLC, established by residents, controlled through its direct appointment of an
accountant and a director, who managed daily operations based on the level of competence stipulated
in the regulations.
Meanwhile, additional information from the archived files, particularly the directives (prikaz)
on employee wages and bonuses as well as reprimands, provides us with some insight into thecontribution made by Rakhmanov, a CDLC chairperson obviously committed to overseeing thecanteen’s daily operation. He visited the canteen on a regular basis and was cosignatory of many
directives with the canteen’s director. For example, on February 7, 1940, Rakhmanov and thecanteen’s director cosigned Directive No. 25 on the dismissal of an employee, Makeeva, who came towork drunk, and on reprimanding the chief cook, Shatkova, who allowed Makeeva to work while
intoxicated and attempted to hide the fact from Rakhmanov who happened to visit the canteen thatmorning.82 On the other hand, we also learned of an incident in which the canteen’s director took partin a CDLC meeting where he received directives on the method for purchasing food and the adoptionof rationalization measures aimed at reducing the price of meals.83
Thus, Canteen No. 171 was in the center of activities conducted by CDLC. Of considerable
significance in their relationship is the arrangement to transfer part of the canteen’s profit to CDLC. In
the 1939 fiscal year, approximately 7240 rubles from the canteen’s net profit of 17,392 rubles weretransferred to Committee funds,84 which enabled financing of other community activities. As the 1939
figures show, Canteen No. 171 continued to operate successfully. Also in that year, the canteen
received 450 rubles in financial aid from CDLC based on its decision on March 7, 1939, andcommemorated the tenth anniversary of its establishment in 1929.85
The satisfactory performance of the canteen makes it difficult to understand why it was
suddenly closed in 1940. The business plan for 1940 shows an expected profit of 10,150 rubles, with atransfer of 7250 rubles to the Committee, although suspension of operations was scheduled for the81

TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.3, ll.20-21.
TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.4, l.12ob.
83
TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.3, l.19.
84
TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.2, l.78; d.3, l.17.
85
TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.3, l.33.
82

24

month of June for canteen renovations.86 Only one document from the files, an investigation report
dated June 4, 1940 written by an inspector from the raion’s financial bureau, hints at the looming
crisis that the canteen encountered in 1940. The report warns of the deteriorating financial affairs of
the canteen and asks that Rakhmanov and the canteen’s director and the accountant cease any
expenditure not approved by the bureau. The report attributes a major part of the problem to thecanteen’s dependence on kolkhoz markets and purchasing at retail prices from State stores. But thistrend was probably due to the resumed food crisis. According to leading historian Osokina, the present
food crisis peaked during the winter of 1939/40 and spring of 1940 for many reasons, including the
beginning of World War II, the invasion of Soviet troops in Poland and the Baltics, and theSoviet-Finland War. Even those living in Moscow experienced severe food hardships. Unfortunately,
the Soviet government responded to the crisis not by reintroducing the ration system, but by raising
prices.87
In light of the situation in 1939/40, it is easier to understand the worsening financial state ofCanteen No. 171. At this time, unlike in 1929, residents could not address the situation by gathering
together their ration books. In the summer of 1940, Canteen No. 171, which emerged from the foodcrisis in 1929 to survive and develop through the 1930s, brought the curtain down on over 10 years ofoperation.

Conclusion
Were the self-managed canteens part of a Stalinist public or a communitarian project? Here, I
use the term “Stalinist Public” as the regime’s official mobilization of the masses to public events,
festivals and projects within the framework of Soviet Socialist construction and based on Communist
ideology. In addition, I emphasize as a distinctive feature of Stalinist public the interest in a strong
women’s presence and the energetic invitation of women to public projects, in contrast to thebourgeois regime’s exclusion of women from the public realm as second-class citizens, for the mostpart remaining unorganized at least until the end of the 1920s. From this perspective, the self-managed
canteen project might be adequately understood under the concept of Stalinist Public, because theproject contributed to the expansion of public canteens in general, which would be highly regarded in
86

TsMAM, f.2474, op.1, d.3, l.37.
Osokina, Za fasadom “stalinskogo izobiliia,” p.206-218; E. Osokina, “Krizis snabzheniia
1939-1941 gg. v pis’makh sovetskikh liudei.” Voprosy istorii, No.1, 1996.

87

25

terms of mass mobilization to rapid industrialization and improved labor productivity. In addition, thecanteen project was inextricably linked to the mobilization of women into production and other public
activities. The CDLC, undertaking the organization and management of the canteen as one of its own“cultural and daily living projects”, also played an important role in mobilizing residents, especiallyhousewives, to festivals, elections and public events. Chotti, a local leader of the canteen movement,
was eager to mobilize housewives to manage canteens. He pledged to “establish a rotation systemamong housewives” in canteen management.88 We could even surmise a type of gender-biased idea ofmobilizing housewives into the canteen project to liberate women from their own kitchen.
Nevertheless, even though the authorities showed strong interest, the movement was unable toexpand as expected and its development was uneven among Moscow’s districts. In short, it was notalways a successful project from the viewpoint of the regime. Therefore, from 1935, interest in the
movement gradually faded. Even under these bleak conditions, however, several self-managed
canteens, such as Canteen No. 171 in Frunze/Kiev raion, survived and continued to develop. To
understand this movement as a whole, including a few exceptional cases, we cannot remain within theconceptual framework of the “Stalinist Public.” The self-managed canteens fulfilled the function of
supporting the daily life of residents. Especially Canteen No. 171, providing meals for the employees
of a neighborhood hospital as well as local residents, operated as a center of the local community andin the late 1930s began to turn a profit, providing funds for other community activities. From thisperspective, we can grasp the movement as a communitarian project under the Stalinist regime.
What factors led to the project’s respectable performance, albeit limited to only part of
Moscow’s districts? This is a difficult question to answer, but several elements came into play.
Certainly some degree of support from the authorities was inevitable under the Soviet regime, because
it took over most human and material resources. The mutual confidence among residents, however,also played a crucial role, as seen by the phenomenon in which individual ration books were collected
for a common project. In this sense, the self-managed canteen movement might have emerged andgrown based on accumulated "social capital", a concept developed by Robert Putnam.89

88

TsMAM, f.1495, op.1, d.91, l.65ob.
Robert D. Putnam, ed., Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary
Society, Oxford University Press, 2002.
89

26