The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Theory of "kulak sabotage" and administrative personnel of collective farms of the South of Russia of the 1930th.

a. S. Levakin


Work is presented by department of the theory of the state and the right and national history of the Southern Russian state technical university (Novocherkassk polytechnical institute).

The research supervisor - the Doctor of Philosophy, professor A.P. Skorik

In article the analysis of social composition of collective-farm administration of the South of Russia the 1930th gt is carried out. for the purpose of establishment of legitimacy of the theory of "kulak sabotage". An author's conclusion that in the 1930th the concept "fist" gradually acquired the socio-political contents that led to unreasonable expansion of this social group and strengthening of repressions is reasonable.

The social background of the collective farms& administration in the south of Russia in the 1930s is analysed to reveal the legitimacy of the "kulak sabotage" theory. The author comes to a conclusion that the notion "kulak" was gradually gaining the social and political meaning in the 1930s, which resulted in the groundless extension of this social group and the increase in repressions.

The continuous forced collectivization developed by the Stalin mode in the late twenties - the beginning of the 1930th, was contrary to the interests of most of the Soviet peasants and therefore originally extremely negatively affected a condition of agriculture of the USSR, and including agrarian production of Don, Kuban and Stavropol Territory. Scales of the negative phenomena in the sphere of collective-farm production (reduction of a livestock of the cattle, falling of level of an agrotechnology, etc.) were so big that neither I.V. Stalin, nor someone another could hide them. But, admitting the sad facts of crisis of agriculture, Stalin hid their true reason because the forced collectivization acted as it (and in general agrarian policy of the state at present), which expediency "leader" did not call into question. Creators of collectivization needed to find such explanation of negative consequences of collectivization and organizational and economic weakness collective-farm

and "collective-farm construction" allowed to carry out systems which would incline public opinion on their party with a bigger intensity. In the greatest measure the objectives were answered by the theory of aggravation of class fight, in process of advance by socialism explaining failures of "socialist construction" with intrigues of numerous "enemies" of the Soviet power. Within this theory there were special subspecies - the theory of "kulak sabotage" according to which the low efficiency of a collective-farm system was explained by anti-Soviet harmful activity of "the rural bourgeoisie" - "fists".

Already in the resolution of November (1929) of a plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) "About results and further tasks of collective-farm construction" it was emphasized that along with strengthening of open fight against collectivization "fists more often pass to the disguised and latent forms of fight and operation, getting into collective farms and even in

governing bodies of collective farms to spread out and blow up them from within". Similar

statements sounded on an extent


a row of the next years, and even at the end of the continuous collectivization in the main grain regions of the country the authorities said that "the fist has still the backs". The most known statement in this respect belongs to Stalin who on January 11, 1933 in the speech "About work in the village", said on the integrated plenum of the Central Committee and CKK All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks), directly accused a part of a rural asset and collective-farm administrative personnel of belonging to "kulachestvo" and conducting "sabotazhnichesky, harmful work".

From party documents and the periodical press the theory of "kulak sabotage" removed

in the Soviet historiography, as obshchesoyuz-

ny, and regional, yuzhnorossy-6 "

I will hold down. Despite undertaken by certain scientists (in particular, E.N. OS -


to kolkovy) attempt to correct it taking into account historical reality, this theory almost unchanged existed throughout the Soviet era. During the Post-Soviet period, in connection with the outlined decrease in interest in a subject of "collective-farm construction", researchers are most often limited to general comments about illegality of the specified theory. At all justice of these remarks they, in our opinion, need documentary justification and completion according to the principles of objectivity and historicism.

It is thought that most often the statements of the Soviet authorities about harmful activity in collective farms of "fists" were the myths necessary for the Stalin management for justification of economic and organizational helplessness of hasty created collective farms. But completely it is not possible to refuse statements about penetration into the structure of the collective-farm management of "fists". Spoke about it not only before -

stavitel of the power, but also the ordinary collective farmers who were repeatedly claiming that many collective-farm administrators have "kulak roots" are "being Coolah - * - 8 Kami and White Guards".

In this regard naturally there are two questions. First, how "fists" in general could appear in collective farms? "the unprecedented campaign of a dispossession of kulaks on the scale and cruelty, apparently, did not leave in the village even vos - "-9 remembrances about this social category". Secondly, what was the number of "fists" as a part of collective-farm administration and what posts they held?

Answering the first question, it is necessary to tell that, in our opinion, at the Soviet village subjected to collectivization (including in villages and villages of the South of Russia) there were three groups of "fists" considerably different from each other. To tell more precisely, these groups, how many approaches to their allocation differed from each other not so much. The first group is fists in initial understanding, i.e. the rural businessmen connected with agriculture, but who at the same time are widely using enslaving transactions, wage labor, usury, etc. The second group is "fists" in terms of the Soviet legislation and the Soviet society, i.e. all more or less prosperous peasants and also opponents of the Soviet power and its actions in the village (such indistinct treatment extended during collectivization). At last, into the third group which can be designated as "collective-farm fists" any member of collective farm, whether it be the ordinary collective farmer or the representative of administration who for any reasons was not arranging authorities could get (however, also representatives of the higher management could please here). If representatives of the first two groups have to have got anyway ("to make the way") to collective farms, then the third group could not arise out of collective farms at all.

Taking into account the above, it is possible to speak about three stages of illegal expansion with the Soviet power of borders of such social stratum as a kulachestvo. Originally fists were excreted within the previous tradition, on the basis of social and economic criteria (conditionally speaking, it is a social and economic stage). But since the beginning of the 1930th not the economy (sources and the amount of income), but policy (relation to the Soviet system) becomes the leading criterion of "fist" any more, and this stage can be designated as ideological and political. In process of development of collectivization when "fists" practically disappeared as a result of "dispossession of kulaks" and repressions, but the organizational and economic condition of collective farms remained serious, their began to find already in the list of collective farmers and the collective-farm management (command and administrative stage when for reckoning to number of "fists" no criteria, except any faults allowed by the member of collective farm were necessary).

First of all we will consider a situation with actually fists. As such authoritative expert in the field of agrarian history and a krestyanovedeniye as specified

V. P. Danilov, fists of the nepovsky village were "not farmers", but "considerably the same old rossy-, 10 "sky exploiters" . These people, widely

the usury using for enrichment, enslaving transactions, impudent exploitation of unfortunate fellows villager, negative only emotions caused in villagers. Therefore during the collectivization "the kulachestvo was surrounded with the narrowed ring of class hatred" & #34; and had almost no chances to get to collective farms. Such assumption especially is probable that fists (real, but not imaginary) in the Soviet dokolkhozny village could not be much, considering deprivations of civil war and legislative restrictions of "growth of a kulachestvo" during a New Economic Policy era;

besides, a number legislative

acts simply forbade to accept in a stake-12

hoza of fists.

However during the collectivization very indistinct definition of a kulachestvo which cornerstone social and economic criteria were not so much as earlier, and criteria socio-political and ideological was born

>. According to this definition, the prosperous peasant (and degree of his prosperity was defined by local authorities randomly, "by eye"), but also any villager anyway opposing collectivization could be ranked as "fists" not only in the slightest degree. The draft resolution of bureau of the North Caucasian regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) on administrative eviction of "kulak" farms developed at the beginning of January, 1930 can be a characteristic example of such broad interpretation of the concept "fist" (where the "Cossack ideologists and authorities", sectarians who were ofi-.13 were ranked as "fists"

tser, and so forth). At such approach anyone though the yesterday's member of the Communist Party who doubted correctness of "the general line" could be announced by "fist". In this regard the words of the first secretary of the North Caucasian regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) E.G. Evdokimov that during "kulak sabotage" of grain-collections of 1932 "the kulak elements" aspired are indicative

enlisting "the to whom-" 14

nist" in the party organizations".

It is also impossible to dismiss numerous cases of reckoning of villagers to number of "kulachestvo" by a slander or because they consisted related to "fists". In particular, cases of slanders in the 1930th were so widespread that in a lexicon of villagers of the South of Russia the expression "for - appeared

to kulachit", i.e. "to make a fist", "prevra-15

to tit in a fist".

With good reason it is possible to claim that "fists" in their broad

understanding (which was inherent both in the Soviet legislation, and consciousness of creators and contemporaries of collectivization) quite could appear in collective farms. However it is necessary to tell that often such "fists" did not make the way in collective farms secretly at all. They entered them from the full consent of peasants. Moreover, quite often collective farmers insisted that these "fists" held senior positions.

As it is represented, such position was caused first of all by the fact that "in governing bodies of collective farm tried vybi-, the 16th host of strong, independent owners"

whom peasants respected and waited from them for reasonable management of collective farm (but just such "strong owners" living in comparative prosperity also fell during the collectivization a subcategory "fists"). Besides, collective farmers needed that knowledge and abilities which were possessed by the "fists" which quite often had higher education level, knowing novelties of an agrotechnology and able to handle the difficult agricultural machinery. Not accidentally in sources a refrain statements repeat that "fists" most often hold in collective farms "technical" positions of supply managers, accountants, agriculturists, cattle breeders, etc.; less often they were among chairmen, members of boards, foremen.

In most cases, however, for residents of the collective-farm village the social accessory and a property status were not that litmus piece of paper by means of which it was possible to establish unmistakably "fist". As we already noted, in collective farms it is possible to allocate one more group of "fists" into which any member of collective-farm administration could get even if he was an absolute poor or the farm laborer. For transfer in this group was not to execute orders of the higher management enough, and especially - to challenge them.

Such approach received expression in the known Stalin speech on January 11, 1933. "About work in the village". Here Stalin twisted that "fists", in essence, are those collective-farm managers who do not want to carry out implicitly grain-collections (as a rule, overestimated), and demand education in collective farm of considerable fodder and food funds. In other words, "leader" changed concepts (any guilty collective farmer or the collective-farm administrator was considered as "fist" now) and that gave a free hand to retaliatory and repressive bodies.

Stalin sayings were heard and supported by workers of OGPU which with even big eagerness began to carry out repressions against all in general the collective farmers who were guilty of something, declaring them "fists" or, at the worst, "Podkulachniks" and "kulak agents" (in this case "Podkulachniks" act kind of as transitional, transitive group which members who were earlier considered as collective farmers then could be ranked already as "fists"). Incontestably proved belonging to "title" social strata of the Soviet village - to farm laborers and poor people now did not save from such charges even. The plenipotentiary of OGPU on the North Caucasian region Kursk, speaking at the first regional congress of collective farmers-drummers in March, 1934, with exhaustive completeness told about specifics of identification of "collective-farm fists". According to him, "fist", being afraid of exposure, now does not aspire on senior positions in collective farms, and tries to push on them the agents: "It passes to a podsovyvaniye method to a position of the accountant of the agent, the Podkulachnik. He sometimes palms off on our bad heads the farm laborer or the poor" 19. At such approach to "fists" it was possible to rank any villager, something guilty or simply not pleasant to the administration.

So, documents allow to speak about existence in collective farms of the South of Russia of "fists" including among collective-farm administration. Another thing is that most often it were the "Soviet", "collective-farm" fists which had nothing in common with actually fists (primitive rural businessmen, usurers) and allocated with the power from the lump of peasants quite often not on property, and by ideological and political criteria.

Answering the second question raised by us - on the number of "fists" as a part of collective-farm administration and on what posts they held, - it is necessary to tell that

about quantitative parameters there is only fractional information. It and is clear as the corresponding statistics in the 1930th was not kept. But nevertheless we can make some idea of quantitative parameters of group of collective-farm managers - "fists".

Reports of political departments of MTS of the North Caucasian region for 1933 contained data on the number of the collective-farm administrators "cleaned" this year as "klassovochuzhdy elements". On different categories of managers (from chairmen of boards of collective farms to foremen and accountants) in 1933 was "cleaned" not me-


it 11-20% . And the majority of justices -

Linz suffered in the first quarter 1933 when there was "a fight against kulak sabotage of grain-collections" during which not only ordinary collective farmers, but also collective-farm administrators underwent repressions. And in 1934 the retaliatory bodies found many "fists" in the structure of collective-farm administration. By the end of 1934 political departments and bodies of OGPU of neogenic North Caucasian edge (where the Areas of Stavropol Territory, Terek and national areas of the North Caucasus entered) "from senior positions of board of collective farms" were

25% of managers "are cleaned". But for the next years about so high number of "fists" in structure administ-

the rativno-administrative personnel of collective farms of the speech did not go any more. So, in November, 1935 the secretary of Azovo-Chernomorsky regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) B.P. Sheboldayev claimed that by results of checks among managers of collective farms of 22 districts of the region

"fists" and other "social and alien ale -

", ~ 22

cops" made only 2-3% .

As for a question of what posts were held by "fists" in collective farms, the answer to it was already heard above. According to the available materials, "fists" most often became supply managers, accountants, accountants, is more rare - chairmen and members of boards of collective farms, foremen, etc. On the one hand, it was explained by the fact that "fists" had special knowledge and skills which were not had by ordinary collective farmers. From other party, in the conditions of mismanagement, usual for early "Stalin" collective farms, and confusion the employees of collective-farm administration allowed the mass of miscalculations and abuses for what were exposed to arrests with simultaneous charge of belonging to "kulachestvo".

It is possible to note that during "collective-farm construction" when there is practically no valid fist left in the Soviet village already, the Stalin mode enclosed in a concept a fist new, ideological and political and command and administrative contents. By "fists" began to call those who could not be ranked earlier as their number at all: not only more or less wealthy peasants, but also ordinary collective farmers and even collective-farm administrators. Illegal expansion of borders of "kulachestvo" ("okulachivaniye") allowed the Stalin mode to announce publicly "kulak sabotage" in collective farms and to shift responsibility for organizational and economic weakness of many collective farms to representatives of collective-farm administrative-and-management personnel, having accused them of belonging to "fists" and of "wrecking".

Theory of "kulak sabotage" and administrative personnel of collective farms of the South of Russia of the 1930th

of the NOTE

1 The CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. 1898-1953. Part II: 19251953. the 7th prod. M, 1953. Page 523.

State Archive of the Rostov Region (SARR). F. r-1390. Op. 6. 439. L. 243; A. Belov. Class fight around collective-farm construction//the Collectivist. 1931. No. 20. Page 10.


Center of Documentation of the Contemporary History of the Rostov Region (CDCHRR). T. 166.0 items 1. 101. L. 173.


I.V. Stalin. About work in the village. The speech on a plenum of the Central Committee and CKK All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) on January 11, 1933//Compositions. M, 1953. T. 13. Page 229-230.

N.V. Yelizarov. Elimination of a kulachestvo as class. M, 1930; N Ivnitsky And. Class fight in the village and elimination of a kulachestvo as class (1929-1932). M, 1972; M.A. Vychtsan, etc. Agriculture collectivization in the USSR: ways, forms, achievements: Short essay of history. M, 1982.

A.G. Oganyan. A historical role of political departments of MTS in strengthening of a collective-farm system in the USSR. 1933-1934. On materials of work of political departments of MTS of the North Caucasian edge: Yew. to Sais. Wuchang, degrees edging. east. sciences. M, 1948; The Lenin way of the Don village / Under the editorship of F.I. Pota-shev and S.A. Andronov. Rostov N / D. 1970; V. Ivanov. And, P.G. Chernopitsky. Socialist construction and class fight to Dona (1920-1937): Historical essay. Rostov N / D., 1971; Essays of history of the party organizations of Don. Part 2: 1921-1971. Rostov N / D., 1973; Essays of history of Stavropol Krai. T. 2: Since 1917 up to now / Otv. edition. A.A. Korobeynikov. Stavropol, 1986.


E.N. Oskolkov. A victory of a collective-farm system in grain areas of the North Caucasus (essays of history of the party guide of collectivization of country and Cossack farms). Rostov N / D, 1973.

S. 287-300. h

CDNI RO. T. 7. Op. 1. 1076. L. 59; T. 166. Op. 1. 100. L. 2, 66; Hammer. 1934. January 2; April 18.

M.N. Glumnaya. To characteristic of collective-farm society of the 1930th (on materials of collective farms of the European North of Russia)//the 20th century and rural Russia. The Russian and Japanese researchers in the "History of the Russian Peasantry in the 20th Century" project / Under the editorship of Hirosi Okud. Tokyo, 2005. Page 265.

& #34; & Danilov of V.P. Kollektivization of agriculture in the USSR//History the USSR. 1990. No. 5. Page 11. & #34; V. Todres. Collective-farm building on Terek. Pyatigorsk, 1930. Page 18-19.

History of the collective-farm right: Collection of legislative materials of the USSR and RSFSR. 19171958: In 2 t. T. I: 1917-1936. M, 1959. Page 174; Tragedy of the Soviet village. Collectivization and dispossession of kulaks: Documents and materials: In 5 t. T. 2: 1929-1930. M, 2000. Page 690; N.A. Maltseva. Collectivization history essays on Stavropol Territory. SPb., 2000. Page 59.

Tragedy of the Soviet village. T. 2. Page 100-103.


State archive of the contemporary history of Stavropol Krai (GANI SK). T. 1. Op. 1. 3.

lbondarev V.A. Semantika of an ideologem "dispossession of kulaks" in the collective-farm village of the South of Russia of the 30th of the 20th century//Language in the context of social legal relations of modern Russia: Materials mezhdunar. nauch. - prakt. konf., Rostov N / D., on March 22, 2006 Rostov N / D., 2006. Page 92.

& #34; M.N. Glumnaya. Decree. soch. Page 266.

CDNI RO. T. 7. Op. 1. 23. L. 21; 1080. L. 16; Akulik, Vorotnitsky, Lipman. Fight for socialist re-education of the collective farmer//Socialist reconstruction of agriculture. 1932.№8.C. 19; Lviv A. Besposhchadno to struggle with plunderers of collective-farm bread//Stake -

lektivist. 1932. No. 17. Page 11.


I.V. Stalin. Decree. soch. Page 230.

19 GANI SK. T. 1. Op. 1. 42. L. 179.

^ It is calculated on: GARO. F. r-1390. Op. 7. 463. L. 1-13, 15-19, 21-25, 27, 29-32, 34-37, 39-42,

44-53, 55, 58-63, 66-69, 71-75, 77-82, 84-86, 88-89, 92-97, 99, 101-105, 107, 109, 111-113, 116-123,
125-126, 128, 132-135, 137-141, 143.145-156, 157-158, 160, 162.164-166, 168-176, 178-179.

GANISK. T. 1. Op. 1. 15. L. 69.

Collective-farm way. 1935. No. 12. Page 15.

Louise Erickson
Other scientific works: