20^th century planning under communism

Catherine Bruckard 698660.

In the 20^th century, new socialist and communist parties were brought to power under revolutions in both Russia and China. Planning under communism during this period can be analysed for the new ideas about planning that these movements brought about, which were unlike those previously seen in many western nations. Revolutions inspired change and these were carried through to planning principles. Both the Soviet Union government and the Chinese communist government came to power and found themselves with full responsibility for planning and management of cities and towns. The lack of private enterprise saw them take on greater responsibilities that capitalist governments would have. How did planning change under communism and ultimately was this successful?

In Russia, a revolutionary socialist party called the Bolsheviks was formed and led by Vladimir Lenin (French, 1995). Their principles were based on the ideas of Karl Marks (French, 1995). Growing civil unrest In Russia overthrew the Russian Czar in February 1917 (BBC, 2014). In October 1917 the new provisional government was itself overthrown by the Bolsheviks who grew support and took control as the government of Russia (BBC, 2014).

China is a country which experienced similar events. In 1949 a communist peasant party was brought to power who also, like the Bolsheviks, had adopted Marxist ideology (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2015). Their rise to power was also brought about though issues of civil unrest, especially from the poorer, rural population (Wu & Gaubatz, 2013). Chairman Mao led the country, a man who believed in a socialist society and communism. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2015).

The Russian soviet state following the revolution had a new responsibility for all aspects of urbanisation, development and running of all towns (French, 1995). The new Chinese communist party also inherited this responsibility, and quickly implemented national urbanisation policies (Wu & Gaubatz, 2013). An added responsibility for both governments came from the requirement by the Marxists that any distinction between rural and urban must be abolished; this could only be done through the improvement of the standards of rural life (French, 1995). Chairman Mao in China thought of cities as places of uncontrolled consumption and a blamed them for the disparity between the rich and poor regions (Wu & Gaubatz, 2013).

In the Soviet Union following the revolution, work was quickly started to plan the “city of socialist man” (French, 1995). Ebenezer Howard and the garden city movement influenced their ideas, especially his idea of the marrying of town and country (French, 1995). This emphasis on greenery was a notion that remained with soviet planning (French, 1995). Many other ideas of planners and architects alike were influential, it seems that any non-traditional idea was embraced; almost as if they wanted nothing to do with the past (French, 1995). The government invited foreign experts in planning to assist, counting on them to help with their ‘5 year plan’ for development and increased industrialisation (Bosma, 2014). The Moscow metro was just one monument built as part of this plan; built to embody the prestige of the Soviet Union through its grand aesthetics and use of materials such as marble. (Vujosevic, 2013). Something such as this could arguably could not have been built under a capitalist government.

The Soviet Union was different to China in the sense it had contrasting groups formed who varied in their ideas about how best to plan Soviet cities. The Disturbanists were one group who took the Marxist idea of ridding disparities between town and country by proposing to abolish towns (French, 1995). Instead people would live along roads in communal housing blocks (French, 1995). Okhitovich, a strong believer in this idea, rejected any idea of a ‘centre’ and talked instead of development along corridors with dispersed individual housing, factories and green spaces (Collier, 2011). Urbanists or Sotsgorod (socialist town) group were another group who had a belief in small, green towns. Many also believed in communal living and standardisation of buildings (see fig. 1).  Although these two groups were hostile towards each other, there was many overlaps in terms of their ideas and beliefs. Both groups believed in communal living, and idea of development linearly was seen to be one as “intermediate” between the two groups (French 1995, p39). Many of the ideas about linear cities were latterly taken up by many planners worldwide (French 1995).

	Fig. 1: Disurbanist scheme for a linear city, by Moisei Ginzburg and Mikhail Barshch (1930) (Wolfe, 2011)

 

In China, development of the communist party came much later than in Russia. Because of this, the new communist government was guided by Soviet advisers (see fig. 2) (Dreyer, 2014). Soviet planners came to China, realising the Soviet model city could in fact be built in China, with Mao’s strong vision and power (Dreyer, 2014). Dreyer (2014) remarks that models of society which were importations from Russia during the Soviet period in both architecture and urban planning also still be seen today in China. It is clear that Soviet Union had a strong guiding influence and almost became an outlet for which some constricted soviet planners could see their ideas transpire (Dreyer, 2014). Under the new government and the advice given to them, the growth of large cities was discouraged, industrial centres were developed and general growth and placement of cities was controlled (Wu & Gaubatz, 2013).  

	Fig. 2 Soviet Russian advisor giving instructions to two Chinese engineers (Cairns, 2014).

 

China has since gone through a number of different developmental stages since then, despite its maintenance of communism. China’s history has been categorised by a number of governmental policies that have sought to control where development and populations reside (Wu & Gaubatz, 2013). One of these was the ‘Great Leap Forward’ in 1958, where policies were made to encourage industrialisation, especially in inland areas (Wu & Gaubatz, 2013). This was similar to ideas of soviet planners, with the aim to disperse industry and growth (Wu & Gaubatz, 2013). The application of this idea in China resulted in a great migration of individuals to these areas and the adoption of a household registration system, which effectively banned migration to cities from rural areas (Wu & Gaubatz, 2013). A number of policies such as this one were implemented in an effort to address the disparities between regions, however the eastern regions are still reported to dominate (Wu & Gaubatz, 2013).

Urban planning during communism in the 1990s was a phase in which new theories were developed and explored in town planning (French, 1995). The soviets inspired change and created novelty in ideas and buildings (French, 1995). Ward (2012) notes that the scale and boldness of what was being built in the Soviet Union were for a period, quite impressive to onlookers such as the British, whose own planning system pre 1939 was conservative and hesitant. They were also able to inspire other communist nations such as China, who today still retains communism (Galbraith, Krytynskaia & Wang, 2004). However, it can be noted that inequalities in both countries between urban and rural did in fact rise, whilst monopolistic sectors increased their power (Galbraith, Krytynskaia & Wang, 2004). Although the ideas of Marxism and equality were excellent in practice, their implementation did not and has not really improved equality with policies such as the one in China preventing migration and effectively increasing the divide between rich and poor, rural and urban.

1085 words

References

BBC (2014). The causes of the October Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/russia/october/revision/1/

Bosma, K. (2014). New socialist cities: foreign architects in the USSR 1920–1940. Planning Perspectives, 29(3), 301-328. 

Collier, S. J. (2011). Post-Soviet Social: Neoliberalism, Social Modernity, Biopolitics (p73) Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dreyer, J (2014, June 26) Maximum city: the vast urban planning projects of Soviet-era Russia are being reborn in modern China. The Calvert Journal. Retrieved from http://calvertjournal.com/comment/show/2760/soviet-era-urbanism-russia-reborn-in-modern-chinese-cities.

Encyclopædia Britannica (2015). China. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/111803/China/71842/Establishment-of-the-Peoples-Republic

French, R.A. (1995). The City of Socialist Man. In Plans, Pragmatism and People: the Legacy of Soviet Planning for Today’s Cities (p29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 49). London, UCL Press.

Galbraith, J. K., Krytynskaia, L., & Wang, Q. (2004). The experience of rising inequality in Russia and China during the Transition (1). The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 1(1), 87-101,103-105.

Vujosevic, T. (2013). Soviet Modernity and the Aesthetics of Gleam: The Moscow Metro in Collective Histories of Construction. Journal Of Design History, 26(3), 271-273.

Ward, S. V. (2012). Soviet communism and the British planning movement: rational learning or Utopian imagining?. Planning Perspectives, 27(4), p516.

Wu, W., & Gaubatz, P. (2013). The Urban system since 1949. In The Chinese City (p78-81, 90). New York, Routledge.

Source of photos

Fig. 1 Wolfe, R (2011, September 25). The Soviet Moment: The Turn toward Urbanism, the Crisis in the West, and the Crossroads of the Architectural Avant-Garde in Russia. Retrieved from http://thecharnelhouse.org/2011/09/25/the-soviet-moment-the-turn-toward-urbanism-the-crisis-in-the-west-and-the-crossroads-of-the-architectural-avant-garde-in-russia/

Fig. 2 Cairns, R (2014) “The First Five Year Plan”, Alpha History, Retrieved from http://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/first-five-year-plan/