The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

To a question of variety of the social and economic relations in the Soviet collectivized village of the 1930th (on materials of the South of Russia)



 © 2007 A. Bondarev

To the QUESTION OF VARIETY of the SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS IN the SOVIET COLLECTIVIZED VILLAGE of the 1930th

(ON MATERIALS of the SOUTH of RUSSIA)

In the Soviet historiography and therefore immutable the statement that collectivization represented a complex of actions for creation of a socialist system of economy which as Stalin at the XVIII congress of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) in 1939 said, "is the only form of our agriculture now" [1] was ideologically reasonable. On this logic, in the collectivized village the collective-farm way presented by collective farms dominated. Personal subsidiary farms of collective farmers (LE) were recognized as a component of collective-farm way, and somewhere on the roadside of rural life there were individual farms representing the splinter of the old country world doomed to disappearance.

In a Post-Soviet historiography such interpretation of the social and economic device of the collective-farm village is fairly criticized as one-sided and, contrary to the settled tradition, both LE, and farms of individualists are quite often qualified as components of country, or old country way [2]. In our opinion, such vision of a problem corresponds to historical reality already at least to a large extent because both LE, and farms of individualists played very noticeable role in life of the collective-farm village. At the same time the interpretation of LE and individual farms as components of old country way needs specification and specification. The analysis of concrete historical materials allows to claim that these farms differed in variety of economic types, and country way in the collective-farm village was non-uniform. If to speak about LE, then they, in our opinion, were divided into two main economic types - natural and consumer and small-scale farms of collective farmers [3]. Within this publication the attention is focused on the developed typology of farms of individualists (as the country farms, closest to a standard) based on materials of the South of Russia.

Individual farms the families (or singles) which were not consisting in collective farm, not being workers and employees and gaining income only or generally from own agricultural production admitted [4, page 375]. Farms of individualists in property and social parameters were divided the Soviet legislation (based on "class approach") into kulak, serednyatsky and poor man's. When the occupation acted as criterion, the labor farms of individualists (which were not using wage labor, not carrying on business and so forth) and farms of speculators ("fists") were allocated. Such division was fixed by Narkomfin's instruction of the USSR "About an order of carrying out an agricultural tax in 1929" [4, page 375].

To some extent such division reflected reality. However available at our disposal archival

materials and other historical sources allow to develop qualitatively other classification of farms of individualists based on their productive and economic characteristics. According to such classification, farms of individualists were differentiated on a number of the main groups (types): 1) consumer type; 2) hired and farm-labourer's; 3) the small-scale farms (which were divided into two categories - before - prinimatelsko - making and garden and market-gardening); 4) primitive and commercial.

The division of individual farms on the specified types was a direct consequence of the public policy which was expressed in the incessant administrative and tax pressure upon not cooperated peasants. Norms of taxes and deliveries to the budget for individualists were much above those which were established for collective farms and collective farmers [4, page 370]. After performance of state tasks the individualists quite often almost did not have money and products. So, the political department of Anastasiyevsky MTS of the Slavic district of the North Caucasian region in October, 1933 reported that most individual farms after performance of deliveries had about 5 - 8 poods of wheat, and others were left with nothing [5, 12, l. 87]. As a result individualists were forced or to phase down the production, or to expand it contrary to the law, or to develop those directions which yielded good revenue at the minimum land.

Without having an opportunity to implement repeatedly overestimated plans of taxes and deliveries, a considerable part of individualists refused cultivation grain (features of grains are wheat, barley and so forth) cultures. So, in the reference prepared in 1933 by the staff of the Kuban Operational Sector (KOS) of OGPU "About situation and a condition of individualists in the Regions of Kuban" it was noted that "the specific weight of individualists in spring sowing is very close to zero" [5, 22, l. 159]. Evasion of a considerable part of individualists from performance of sowing tasks remained a steady trend throughout the 1930th. Farms of consumer, hired and farm-labourer's, primitive and commercial types and also (in the majority) garden and market-gardening acted this way.

Individual farms of consumer type limited the sizes to consumer norm. In 1932 the individualists of the village Poltava in Kuban, allegedly under the influence of "kulak propaganda", became "sow black to the mountain" that meant: "wrapping up the plan, zaboronovyvy, not to sow, not to throw into the earth uniform grain, except for small consumer norm which is necessary for satisfaction of personal needs" [6]. It is a picturesque, but not single example. Besides, farms on -

trebitelsky type often were not engaged in agriculture and existed at the expense of natural resources (fishing, gathering berries, fruit and t) and plunders of products from fields, kitchen gardens, farms and barns of collective farms and villagers [7]. In the mentioned reference it was said "About situation and a condition of individualists in the Regions of Kuban" that many individualists, without having crops, "trade in fishing, small speculation and theft" [5, 22, l. 160, 161]. From the beginning of a harvesting of 1934 on collective farms 7 MTS of Kuban numerous cases of a hairstyle of ears were noted, and employees of OGPU claimed that "in the majority plunderers are the individualists who do not have the crops" [5, 115, l. 4]. And the secretary of regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) of Azovo-Chernomorsky edge B.P. Sheboldayev stated in July, 1934 that "individualists in enormous quantity are the shots delivering pilferers who steal from the kolkhoz field" [8, page 179].

A considerable part of impoverished individualists offered employers the working hands (farms on - emno-farm-labourer's type). Such individualists processed the personal plots, held the cattle and a bird, but the main source of means for them was employment. Within agrarian production the representatives of individual farms of hired and farm-labourer's type had three main options of employment - to be employed in farm laborers to prosperous individualists or collective farmers, to register in seasonal works in state farm or to go on earnings to collective farm.

Farm work and hiring of seasonal workers remained in the collective-farm village, despite government taboos. Farm laborers most often worked for the owner constantly, generally for food, clothes and so forth. Seasonal workers were attracted for hard agricultural works (harvesting) and most often received money or a part of collected products for the work. Hired workers and farm laborers were used by the most large-scale enterprises of individualists (and collective farmers) who could not perform all works as work of the members. Statistically, by the end of 1934 the average family of the individualist of Azovo-Chernomorsky edge consisted of 3.3 people, and the North Caucasian edge - 4.17 [9]. In 1935 - 1937 the structure of families of individualists in the south of Russia significantly did not change [10].

Cases of application by individualists of work of hired seasonal workers or hiring of constant farm laborers are rather often mentioned in sources [11], and scales of wage labor impress. So, in 1933 - 1934 in the village Petrovsky the Petrovsky district of the North Caucasian region used "seasonal labor for processing of gardens, vineyards and kitchen gardens" "up to 1,000 individual farms" [12]. Even in the late thirties - the beginning of the 1940th the similar phenomena took place [13].

In the first half of the 1930th the individualists played an important role in collective farms and state farms as in these enterprises often there were not enough workers for development of considerable land. Authorities in the North Caucasian region in 1934 pe-

chalno noticed that "in some places work of individualists in collective farm occupies big specific weight in production, has systematic character, and speaking to the point, turned into practice of hiring by collective farms of labor" [12, 22, l. 165]. In the Azovo-Chernomorsky region the situation was made similar [14].

In settlings of collective farms with individualists there was "a huge diversity. Even within one area, one MTS in different collective farms these conditions [were] various" [5, 22, l. 165]: in different collective farms the individualists received or only food, or workdays (paid with nature and money); in some collective farms they were given bread less, than to collective farmers, in others - equally that and another, etc. But, anyway, working in collective farm, individualists could provide the families with food (of course, only in case of successful agricultural year).

Even more favorable to individualists was work in state farms as here, besides earnings, they received also additional resources (we will tell, a part of a harvest from the processed sites as was in the Sochi district in 1934) [5, 112, l. 48]. Besides, in state farms the individualists received a number of the privileges established by the law: were exempted from an agricultural tax, state deliveries, implementation of plans of sowing [15]. These privileges were especially important for besposevny and low-power farms of individualists which in the majority treated hired farm-labourer's type.

Individual farms of garden and market-gardening type, having reduced to a minimum crops grain (especially grains) cultures, accented efforts on cultivation of fruit, berries and vegetables. In 1934 the members of the obsledovatelsky commissions in the North Caucasian region noted that "there are a lot of individualists & #34; забросили" field lands and... pass to high-valuable crops and cultures: kitchen gardens, melon field, vineyards... almost everywhere (even in steppe areas) there is a process of gradual transition of individualists to cultivation of intensive cultures (vegetables, berry-pickers, gardens) on personal plots" [12, 118, l. 83, 92]. In general on edge such farms made 15 - 20% in the lump of individualists (and it was noted that for 1934 the number of these farms increased a little) [12, 118, l. 83].

Advantages of garden and market-gardening farms were obvious. If in the North Caucasian region in 1934 one hectare of an arable land brought to individualists 400 rub of income, then 1/3 hectares of a kitchen garden - to 800 rub, 1/4 hectares of a melon field - 650 rub, 0.18 hectares of a vineyard - 5,760 rub [12, 117, l. 25]. According to the secretary of regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) of Azovo-Chernomorsky edge B.P. Sheboldayev, the individualist "on rather small crops, especially vegetables... can receive 3 - 4 - 5 thousand rubles absolutely freely, speculating in the market" [8, page 179]. And garden and market-gardening farms of individualists (as well as collective farmers) in the south of Russia concentrated and successfully developed in a number of the large villages which were located near the cities, regional centers or resorts [12, 118, l. 92]. Citizens and vacationers were constant consumers of vegetables and fruit, koto-

ry were made by individualists for the purpose of sale. It is necessary to tell that the garden and market-gardening farms of individualists located near large sales markets were the most hardy on Don, Kuban and Stavropol Territory. So, even in the spring of 1941 in the Rostov region the greatest number of individual farms (from 898 survived [16, 4, l. 75], it was concentrated in those areas where the large cities or rural settlements which were traditionally suppliers of vegetables and fruit were located: Azov, Bataysk, Bagh-evsky (there was the greatest number of individual farms - 67), Novocherkassk areas, etc. [16, 3, l. 1, 3, 7].

Individual farms of the enterprise making type ("kulak") unlike other individual farms sought not for reduction, and for building of the operational performance. These farms not only did not refuse field husbandry and cultivation of grains, but, on the contrary, sought to expand the areas of such cultures and to use hired labor for their processing. But individualists could make, having only violated the law as still on February 1, 1930 the Central Election Commission and SNK of the USSR the resolution according to which in areas of continuous collectivization land lease and use of wage labor were forbidden them was accepted; actual position of this resolution were widespread all over the country [17].

When individualists nevertheless had to expand the allotments, usual ways were captures (as a rule, at collective farms and state farms), rent (at the same collective farms and state farms, other organizations, stanitsa and village councils, collective farmers and horseless individualists) and is much more rare - purchase of land. Individualists widely used these illegal methods as their requests for granting the best sites to them (such examples contain in documents [5, 111, l. 198]), as a rule, not only were rejected by the authorities, but also were qualified as "anti-Soviet" actions.

Judging from the fact that certificates on purchase and sale of the earth meet slightly, this way was least widespread [18]. Much more widespread option of expansion of the land plots was land lease by individualists at agricultural enterprises and the Village Councils that was recognized by the secretary of Azovo-Chernomorsky regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) B.P. Sheboldayev [8, page 179] (and there are data that, contrary to the government bans, in certain areas "income from delivery of the earth was provided in rent by the estimate approved in rayfo, and district executive committees establish firm rates for rent of one hectare of the earth" [8, page 310]. Renting the earth, individualists paid rent money (50 - 100 rub for a hundred part or even for hectare) or products and things (grain, potatoes, even lamps "bat", etc.

[19]), or gave for it a part of a harvest [14], or fulfilled [20]. Also occupations of the earth by them, and not only were very widespread among agricultural enterprises, collective farmers, but also among representatives of the social group [21].

In each region of Don, Kuban and Stavropol Territory there were individual farms sowing considerable land. So, a number of individualists of the village of Alekseevsky (Blagodarnensky district of the North Caucasian region) sowed sites which surpassed the average areas of the collective-farm earth falling on each collective-farm yard in 1934. In this village the individualist Myasishchev had 6 hectares of crops, the Hot dry wind - 12, Volkov - 13, Bondarenko - 14 hectares [12, 118, l. 101, 102]. Thanks to efforts predprinima - telsko - the making farms, individualists in general performed and exceeded sowing tasks. In 1934 on North Caucasian edge the plan of sowing was established to them in 407 thousand hectares, and 428 thousand (105.2% to the plan) [12, by 117, l were sowed. 21]. Besides, expansion of land gave to individualists double benefit: they could increase the amount of the crops, including (and especially) grain and to transfer the excess earth to sublease on the terms of transfer of a part urozhdy or working off [22].

However grain production was not neither only, nor the most important, nor the most profitable for individual farms predprinima - telsko - the making type. Such farms grew up both vegetables, and fruit, were engaged in crafts and so forth. Observers emphasized that "besides grain crops the most part of individualists in villages of Prikumsky, Suvorov, Stavropol and Vinodelensky districts own gardens, vineyards, kitchen gardens, have homestead plots from 0.5 to 2 hectares" [12, 117, l. 23]. In the south of Russia the individualists gained considerable income from sale of brooms which was made by them from especially for it the seeded a millet and sorgoobrazny plants. According to 1934, in the North Caucasian region the market price of one broom was 3 rub that at average yield from one hectare (when it was possible to make up to 700 brooms) gave up to 2 thousand rubles. At the same time the barley hectare at (high) productivity in 12 c brought only 100 rub (the truth, at the procuring prices conceding to market) [12, 117, l. 23].

Individualists gained certain income from livestock production. But it is necessary to recognize that in most individual farms this industry was nearly in the last place (enormous losses of livestock production affected during the collectivization, difficulty with sterns and so forth). An exception were horses and draft power. For individualists, essentially eliminated clients of MTS (apart from isolated cases of lease of tractors by individualists together with the earth [12, 117, l. 23]), the horse was the major tyaglo-

howl by force. As not all individual farms had horses, owners of a tyagl appeared in very favorable situation and gained quite good income by carrying, processing of the land plots of horseless individualists and collective farmers. In 1933 - 1934 horseless farms of individualists and the collective farmers of the North Caucasian edge paid owners of horses for plowing and crops of 100 - 150 rub for hectare [12, 118, l. 96]. Such prices were also in the Azovo-Chernomorsky region [5, 112, l. 147]. Besides money, individualists quite often took a part of a harvest for granting horses (up to 50 and even 75%) [23]. The individualists of Don, Kuban and Stavropol Territory who were carrier in some cases made flights to considerable distances (to Kalmykia, Tiflis, Baku, even Moscow) [24] what they received considerable money for and "could live perfectly" [8, page 179].

One more group (very not numerous) of individual farms were the farms of primitive and commercial type accenting efforts not on production, and on trade and on business. Objectively dealers and speculators were necessary for the village as they delivered city consumer goods here and saved villagers from need to leave on the far markets where the prices of some goods (we will tell, on the same fruit or vegetables) were higher. So, members of the obsledovatelsky commissions for North Caucasian region noted in 1934 that "individualists take out brooms for sale to Tiflis, Baku, Moscow through buyers as whom the most enterprising of the same individualists" [12, as 117, l act. 23]. However in the conditions of legislatively issued persecutions on free trade in the USSR the activity of individualists businessmen found quite often semi-criminal shade (trade in the stolen grain and flour, a secret grinding of grain and so forth [25]). Certain individualists arrived as "the great schemer" learned, and made money literally from air (At the go-lovny code they at the same time obviously did not honor). For example, around activity of Azovo-Chernomorsky edge by the Belorechensk MTS in April, 1934 fists speculators Kurulyan and Zabilyan who moved to the farm Lower Gurian of the Armenian district of the region "left to Sukhum where were engaged in recruitment of Armenians on resettlement into Kuban, promising them admission to membership in society, good lands, etc.". "They took bribes for assistance in resettlement. Besides, buying from collective farmers of the house, resold them to the arrived immigrants at the high prices", for as were arrested [5, 111, l. 159].

So, the collectivized village of the 1930th differed in variety of types of LE of collective farmers and farms of individualists. At the individual sector there were farms of consumer, hired and farm-labourer's, primitive and commercial types and small-scale farms (garden and market-gardening and enterprise making). Activity of individual farms in the collective-farm village was

it is especially noticeable in the first half of the 1930th (especially in 1933 - 1935 when the power for some time ceased to force rates of collectivization). Subsequently positions of individual way under pressure of the power were considerably reduced, and by the end of the 1930th the individualists were practically not noticeable in the mass of the collective-farm yards.

Literature

1. I.V. Stalin. Leninism questions: the 11th prod. M, 1945. Page 580.
2. M.A. Beznin, T.M. Dimoni. An agrarian system in Russia in 1930 - the 1980th years (new approach)//history Questions. 2005. No. 7. Page 31, 34; They. Process of capitalization in the Russian agriculture of 1930 - the 1980th years//National history. 2005. No. 6. Page 106.
3. See: V.A. Bondarev. Peasantry and collectivization. Multiformity of the social and economic relations of the village of Don, Kuban and Stavropol Territory in the late twenties - the 30th years of the 20th century. Rostov N / D, 2006. Page 314-356.
4. M.A. Vyltsan. Last individualists. Istochni-kovy base, historiography//Fate of the Russian peasantry. M, 1995. Page 375.
5. TsDNIRO, t. 166, op. 1, 12, l. 87.
6. Socialist agriculture. 1933. On Jan. 9
7. RGASPI, t. 17, op. 120, 117, l. 32; 232, l. 66; TsTsNIRO, t. 166, op. 1, 22, l. 76, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 181; Tragedy of the Soviet village. Collectivization and dispossession of kulaks: Documents and materials: In 5 t. T. 4. M, 2002. Page 179.
8. Tragedy of the Soviet village. T. 4.
9. Calculated on: RGAE, t. 1562, op. 82, 272, l. 44.
10. RGAE, t. 1562, op. 82, 272, l. 14, 15, 23, 24.
11. RGASPI, t. 17, op. 120, 117, l. 24; Hammer. 1934. June 26; Hammer. 1934. Sep. 12; Tragedy of the Soviet village. Page 179.
12. RGASPI, t. 17, op. 120, 117, l. 25.
13. Forward. 1941. June 3.
14. Hammer. 1934. June 26.
15. Hammer. 1934. March 28; June 2.
16. GARO, t. river-4034, op. 8, 4, l. 75.
17. M.N. Glumnaya. Individual country economy in the European North of Russia in 1933 - 1937: Yew.... edging. east. sciences. M, 1994. Page 49.
18. Hammer. 1934. May 14.
19. RGASPI, t. 17, op. 120, 117, l. 22-23; 118, l. 96; Hammer. 1934. July 21; Oct. 5; Tragedy of the Soviet village. Page 312.
20. Hammer. 1934. June 26; Aug. 26; Tragedy of the Soviet village.... Page 310.
21. RGASPI, t. 17, op. 120, 118, l. 94; Hammer. 1934. June 26; Tragedy of the Soviet village. Page 310, 312.
22. Hammer. 1934. Apr. 23; May 14; Tragedy of the Soviet village. Page 179, 313.
23. RGASPI, t. 17, op. 120, 118, l. 96; Sozzalisti-

chesky agriculture. 1933. Jan. 9 23, l. 4, 6, 33.

24. RGASPI, t. 17. op. 120. 117, l. 23; 118, l. 10; TsDNIRO, t. 166, op. 1, 23, l. 33.
25. TsDNIRO, t. 166, op. 1, 22, l. 81, 127-128;

Southern Russian state technical university On December 11, 2007

Susan Brown
Other scientific works: