The period of collectivization of agriculture in the USSR terms. Solid collectivization

Collectivization- the process of uniting individual peasant farms into collective farms (collective farms in the USSR). The decision on collectivization was made at the XV Congress of the CPSU (b) in 1927. It was held in the USSR in the late 1920s - early 1930s (1928-1933); in the western regions of Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, collectivization was completed in 1949-1950.

Purpose of collectivization- the establishment of socialist production relations in the countryside, the transformation of small-scale individual farms into large-scale highly productive social cooperative industries. As a result of complete collectivization, an integral system of massive transfer of financial, material and labor resources from the agricultural sector to the industrial sector was created. This served as the basis for the subsequent rapid industrial growth, which made it possible to overcome the qualitative lag of the industry of the USSR from the leading world powers.

collectivization tasks.

The party leadership saw a way out of the "bread difficulties" in the reorganization of agriculture, which provided for the creation of state farms and the collectivization of poor and middle peasant farms, while at the same time resolutely fighting the kulaks. According to the initiators of collectivization, the main problem of agriculture was its fragmentation: most farms were in small private ownership with a high proportion of manual labor, which did not allow satisfying the growing demand of the urban population for food products, and industry for agricultural raw materials. Collectivization was supposed to solve the problem of the limited distribution of industrial crops in the conditions of small individual farming and form the necessary raw material base for the processing industry. It was also supposed to reduce the cost of agricultural products for the end consumer by eliminating the chain of intermediaries, as well as to increase productivity and labor efficiency in agriculture through mechanization, which was supposed to free up additional labor resources for industry. The result of collectivization was to be the presence of a commercial mass of agricultural products in an amount sufficient to form food reserves and supply the rapidly growing urban population with food.

Unlike previous major agrarian reforms in Russia, such as the abolition of serfdom in 1861 or the Stolypin agrarian reform of 1906, collectivization was not accompanied by any clearly formulated program and detailed instructions for its implementation, while attempts by local leaders to obtain clarifications dealt with by disciplinary action. The signal for a radical change in policy towards the countryside was given in the speech of I.V. Stalin at the Communist Academy in December 1929, although no specific instructions were given for collectivization, except for the call to "eliminate the kulaks as a class."

Complete collectivization.

Since the spring of 1929, measures were taken in the countryside aimed at increasing the number of collective farms - in particular, Komsomol campaigns "for collectivization". In the RSFSR, the institution of agricultural representatives was created, in Ukraine much attention was paid to the komnezams (analogue of the Russian commander) that had been preserved from the civil war. In general, the use of administrative measures managed to achieve a significant increase in collective farms. On November 7, 1929, the Pravda newspaper, No. 259, published Stalin's article "The Year of the Great Break", in which 1929 was declared the year of "a fundamental turning point in the development of our agriculture": "The availability of a material base in order to replace kulak production served the basis for the turn in our policy in the countryside... We have recently moved from a policy of limiting the exploitative tendencies of the kulaks to a policy of liquidating the kulaks as a class.” This article is recognized by most historians as the starting point of "solid collectivization." According to Stalin, in 1929 the party and the country managed to achieve a decisive turning point, in particular, in the transition of agriculture "from small and backward individual farming to large-scale and advanced collective farming, to joint cultivation of the land, to machine and tractor stations, to artels, collective farms , relying on new technology, and finally, to the giant state farms, armed with hundreds of tractors and combines.

The real situation in the country, however, was far from being so optimistic. According to the Russian researcher O. V. Khlevnyuk, the course towards forced industrialization and forced collectivization "actually plunged the country into a state of civil war."

In the countryside, forced grain procurements, accompanied by mass arrests and the ruin of farms, led to mutinies, the number of which by the end of 1929 was already in the hundreds. Not wanting to give property and livestock to the collective farms and fearing the repression that wealthy peasants were subjected to, people slaughtered livestock and reduced crops.

Meanwhile, the November (1929) plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution "On the results and further tasks of collective farm construction", in which it noted that a large-scale socialist reconstruction of the countryside and the construction of large-scale socialist agriculture had begun in the country. The resolution pointed out the need for a transition to complete collectivization in certain regions. At the plenum, it was decided to send 25,000 urban workers (twenty-five thousand people) to the collective farms for permanent work to “manage the established collective farms and state farms” (in fact, their number subsequently increased almost threefold, amounting to over 73 thousand).

Created on December 7, 1929, the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR under the leadership of Ya. A. Yakovlev was instructed to "practically lead the work on the socialist reconstruction of agriculture, directing the construction of state farms, collective farms and MTS and uniting the work of the republican commissariats of agriculture."

The main active actions to carry out collectivization took place in January - early March 1930, after the release of the Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 5, 1930 "On the pace of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction." The resolution set the task of basically completing collectivization by the end of the five-year plan (1932), while in such important grain-growing regions as the Lower and Middle Volga and the North Caucasus, by the autumn of 1930 or spring 1931.

“Lower collectivization” took place, however, in accordance with the way it was seen by one or another local official - for example, in Siberia, peasants were massively “organized into communes” with the socialization of all property. The districts competed with each other in who would quickly receive a greater percentage of collectivization, etc. Various repressive measures were widely used, which Stalin later (in March 1930) criticized in his famous article “Dizzy with Success” and which later received the name “ left bends” (subsequently, the vast majority of such leaders were condemned as “Trotskyist spies”).

This provoked sharp resistance from the peasantry. According to data from various sources cited by O. V. Khlevnyuk, in January 1930, 346 mass demonstrations were registered, in which 125 thousand people took part, in February - 736 (220 thousand), in the first two weeks of March - 595 ( about 230 thousand), not counting Ukraine, where 500 settlements were covered by unrest. In March 1930, in general, in Belarus, the Central Black Earth region, in the Lower and Middle Volga regions, in the North Caucasus, in Siberia, in the Urals, in the Leningrad, Moscow, Western, Ivanovo-Voznesensk regions, in the Crimea and Central Asia, 1642 mass peasant uprisings, in which at least 750-800 thousand people took part. In Ukraine, at that time, more than a thousand settlements were already covered by unrest.

Famine in the USSR (1932-1933)

Despite this, locally, the planned norms for the collection of agricultural products sought to be met and exceeded - the same applied to the plan for the export of grain, despite a significant drop in prices on the world market. This, like a number of other factors, eventually led to a difficult food situation and famine in villages and small towns in the east of the country in the winter of 1931-1932. The freezing of winter crops in 1932 and the fact that a significant number of collective farms approached the sowing campaign of 1932 without seed and working cattle (which fell or were not suitable for work due to poor care and lack of fodder, which were handed over to the plan for general grain procurements ), led to a significant deterioration in the prospects for the 1932 harvest. Plans for export deliveries were reduced across the country (by about three times), planned harvesting of grain (by 22%) and delivery of livestock (by 2 times), but this did not save the overall situation - a repeated crop failure (death of winter crops, undersowing, partial drought, a decrease in yield caused by a violation of basic agronomic principles, large losses during harvesting, and a number of other reasons) led to severe famine in the winter of 1932 - in the spring of 1933.

As Gareth Jones, adviser to the former British Prime Minister Lloyd George, wrote in the Financial Times on April 13, 1933, who visited the USSR three times between 1930 and 1933, the main cause of the mass famine in the spring of 1933, in his opinion, was the collectivization of agriculture, which led to the following consequences:

the seizure of land from more than two-thirds of the Russian peasantry deprived them of incentives to work; in addition, in the previous year (1932), almost the entire harvest was forcibly seized from the peasants;

the mass slaughter of livestock by peasants because of their unwillingness to give it to collective farms, the mass death of horses due to lack of fodder, the mass death of livestock due to epizootics, cold and starvation on collective farms catastrophically reduced the number of livestock throughout the country;

the fight against the kulaks, during which "6-7 million of the best workers" were driven from their lands, dealt a blow to the labor potential of the state;

an increase in food exports due to a decrease in world prices for the main export commodities (timber, grain, oil, oil, etc.).

Realizing the critical situation, the leadership of the CPSU (b) by the end of 1932 - the beginning of 1933. adopted a number of decisive changes in the management of the agrarian sector - a purge of both the party as a whole (Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of December 10, 1932 on the purge of members and candidates of the party in 1933) and institutions and organizations of the USSR People's Commissariat of Agriculture system was launched. The contracting system (with its disastrous "counter plans") was replaced by mandatory deliveries to the state, commissions were created to determine the yield, the system of procurement, supply and distribution of agricultural products was reorganized, and a number of other measures were taken. The most effective under the conditions of the catastrophic crisis were the measures for the direct party leadership of the collective farms and MTS - the creation of political departments of the MTS.

This made it possible, despite the critical situation in agriculture in the spring of 1933, to sow and harvest a good harvest.

Already in January 1933, at the Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the liquidation of the kulaks and the victory of socialist relations in the countryside were ascertained.

On March 14, 1930, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution "On Combating Distortions in the Party Line in the Collective-Farm Movement." A government directive was sent to the localities to soften the course in connection with the threat of a "wide wave of insurgent peasant uprisings" and the destruction of "half of the grassroots workers." After a sharp article by Stalin and bringing individual leaders to justice, the pace of collectivization slowed down, and the artificially created collective farms and communes began to fall apart.

The liquidation of the kulaks as a class.

By the beginning of complete collectivization, the party leadership won the opinion that the main obstacle to the unification of the poor peasants and the middle peasants is the more prosperous stratum in the village formed during the years of the NEP - the kulaks, as well as the social group that supports them or depends on them - the "podkulakniks".

As part of the implementation of complete collectivization, this obstacle had to be “removed”. On January 30, 1930, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution "On measures to eliminate kulak farms in areas of complete collectivization." At the same time, it is noted that the starting point for the “liquidation of the kulak as a class” was the publication in newspapers of all levels of Stalin’s speech at the congress of Marxist agrarians in the last days of December 1929. A number of historians note that the planning for the “liquidation” took place in early December 1929 - in so-called. "Yakovlev Commission" since the number and "areas" of the eviction of "kulaks of the 1st category" were already approved by January 1, 1930. « Fists» were divided into three categories: 1st - counter-revolutionary asset: kulaks who actively oppose the organization of collective farms, fleeing from their permanent place of residence and moving into an illegal position; 2nd - the richest local kulak authorities, who are the stronghold of the anti-Soviet activists; 3rd - the rest of the fists. In practice, not only kulaks were subjected to eviction with confiscation of property, but also so-called sub-kulaks, that is, middle peasants, poor peasants and even farm laborers caught in pro-kulak and anti-collective farm actions (there were not isolated cases of settling scores with neighbors and deja vu “rob the loot”) - which clearly contradicted the point clearly indicated in the resolution on the inadmissibility of "infringement" of the middle peasant. The heads of kulak families of the first category were arrested, and cases about their actions were referred to the "troikas" consisting of representatives of the OGPU, regional committees (krai committees) of the CPSU (b) and the prosecutor's office. Kulaks assigned to the third category, as a rule, moved within the region or territory, that is, they were not sent to a special settlement. Dispossessed peasants of the second category, as well as families of kulaks of the first category, were evicted to remote areas of the country for a special settlement, or labor settlement (otherwise it was called "kulak exile" or "labor exile"). In the certificate of the Department for Special Settlers of the GULAG of the OGPU, it was indicated that in 1930-1931. 381,026 families with a total number of 1,803,392 people were evicted (with sending to a special settlement), including 63,720 families from Ukraine, of which: 19,658 families to the Northern Territory, 32,127 to the Urals, 6,556 to Western Siberia, 5,056 to Eastern Siberia, to Yakutia - 97, the Far Eastern Territory - 323.

results of collectivization.

As a result of the collectivization policy pursued by Stalin: more than 2 million peasants were deported, of which 1,800,000 only in 1930-1931; 6 million died of starvation, hundreds of thousands - in exile.

This policy caused a lot of uprisings among the population. In March 1930 alone, the OGPU counted 6,500 mass demonstrations, of which 800 were suppressed with the use of weapons. Overall, during 1930, about 2.5 million peasants took part in 14,000 uprisings against the Soviet policy of collectivization.

In one interview, professor of political science at Moscow State University and Ph.D. Aleksey Kara-Murza expressed the opinion that collectivization was a direct genocide of the Soviet people.

The first attempts at collectivization were made by the Soviet government immediately after the revolution. However, at that time there were many more serious problems. The decision to carry out collectivization in the USSR was made at the 15th Party Congress in 1927. The reasons for collectivization were, first of all:

• the need for large investments in industry for the industrialization of the country;
• and the "grain procurement crisis" that the authorities faced in the late 1920s.

The collectivization of peasant farms began in 1929. During this period, taxes on individual farms were noticeably increased. The process of dispossession began - the deprivation of property and, often, the expulsion of wealthy peasants. There was a mass slaughter of cattle - the peasants did not want to give it to the collective farms. Members of the Politburo who objected to harsh pressure on the peasantry were accused of right deviation.

But, according to Stalin, the process was not going fast enough. In the winter of 1930, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee decided to carry out a complete collectivization of agriculture in the USSR as soon as possible, in 1-2 years. Peasants were forced to join collective farms, threatened with dispossession. The seizure of bread from the village led to a terrible famine in 1932-33. erupted in many regions of the USSR. In that period, according to minimal estimates, 2.5 million people died.

As a result, collectivization dealt a tangible blow to agriculture. Grain production decreased, the number of cows and horses decreased by more than 2 times. Only the poorest sections of the peasantry benefited from mass dispossession and entry into collective farms. The situation in the countryside improved somewhat only during the second five-year plan. Collectivization was one of the important stages in the approval of the new regime.

Collectivization in the USSR: causes, methods of implementation, results of collectivization

Collectivization of agriculture in the USSR- this is the unification of small individual peasant farms into large collective ones through production cooperation.

The Grain Procurement Crisis of 1927-1928 jeopardized plans for industrialization.

The 15th Congress of the CPSU proclaimed collectivization the main task of the Party in the countryside. The policy of collectivization was expressed in the widespread creation of collective farms, which were provided with benefits in the field of credit, taxation, and the supply of agricultural machinery.

Goals of collectivization:
- increasing the export of grain to provide financing for industrialization;
- implementation of socialist transformations in the countryside;
- ensuring the supply of rapidly growing cities.

The pace of collectivization:
- spring 1931 - the main grain areas;
- spring 1932 - Central Chernozem region, Ukraine, Urals, Siberia, Kazakhstan;
- the end of 1932 - the rest of the districts.

In the course of mass collectivization, the kulak farms were liquidated - dispossession. Lending was stopped and taxation of private households was increased, laws on land lease and labor hiring were abolished. It was forbidden to accept kulaks into collective farms.

In the spring of 1930, anti-kolkhoz demonstrations began. In March 1930, Stalin published an article, Dizziness from Success, in which he blamed the local authorities for forced collectivization. Most of the peasants left the collective farms. However, already in the autumn of 1930, the authorities resumed forced collectivization.

Collectivization was completed by the mid-30s: 1935 in the collective farms - 62% of farms, 1937 - 93%.

The consequences of collectivization were extremely severe:
- reduction in gross production of grain, livestock;
- growth of export of bread;
- mass famine of 1932 - 1933. from which more than 5 million people died;
- weakening of economic incentives for the development of agricultural production;
- Alienation of peasants from property and the results of their labor.

The results of collectivization

I have already mentioned the role of complete collectivization and its miscalculations, excesses and mistakes. Now to summarize the results of collectivization:

1. Elimination of prosperous farming - the kulaks with the division of their property between the state, collective farms and the poor.

2. Ridding the village of social contrasts, stripes, land surveying, etc. The final socialization of a huge share of cultivated land.

3. The beginning of equipping the rural economy with the means of a modern economy and communications, accelerating the electrification of the countryside

4. Destruction of the rural industry - the sector of primary processing of raw materials and food.

5. Restoration in the form of collective farms of an archaic and easily managed rural community. Strengthening political and administrative control over the most numerous class - the peasantry.

6. The ruin of many regions of the South and East - most of the Ukraine, the Don, Western Siberia in the course of the struggle around collectivization. The famine of 1932-1933 is a "critical food situation."

7. Stagnation in labor productivity. A long decline in animal husbandry and an aggravation of the meat problem.

The devastating consequences of the first steps of collectivization were also condemned by Stalin himself in his article "Dizziness from Success", which appeared as early as March 1930. In it, he declaratively condemned the violation of the principle of voluntariness when enrolling in collective farms. However, even after the publication of his article, enrollment in collective farms remained virtually compulsory.

The consequences of breaking the age-old economic structure in the countryside were extremely severe.

The productive forces of agriculture were undermined for years to come: for 1929-1932. the number of cattle and horses was reduced by a third, pigs and sheep - by more than half. The famine that struck the weakened village in 1933 claimed the lives of over five million people. Millions of the dispossessed also perished from cold, hunger, overwork.

And at the same time, many of the goals set by the Bolsheviks were achieved. Despite the fact that the number of peasants decreased by a third, and the gross production of grain by 10%, its state procurement in 1934. compared to 1928 have doubled. Independence from imports of cotton and other important agricultural raw materials was gained.

In a short time, the agrarian sector, dominated by small-scale, poorly controlled elements, found itself in the grip of rigid centralization, administration, order, and turned into an organic component of the directive economy.

The effectiveness of collectivization was tested during the Second World War, the events of which revealed both the power of the state economy and its vulnerable sides. The absence of large food reserves during the war years was a consequence of collectivization - the extermination of collectivized livestock by individual farmers, the lack of progress in labor productivity on most collective farms. During the war years, the state was forced to accept help from abroad.

Under the first measure, a significant amount of flour, canned food and fats entered the country, mainly from the United States and Canada; food, like other goods, was supplied by the allies at the insistence of the USSR in the order of lend-lease, i.e. in fact, on credit with a settlement after the war, in connection with which the country was drawn into debt for many years.

Initially, it was assumed that the collectivization of agriculture would be carried out gradually, as the peasants realized the benefits of cooperation. However, the grain procurement crisis of 1927/28. showed that the preservation of market relations between the city and the countryside in the context of the beginning of industrialization is problematic. The party leadership was dominated by supporters of the rejection of the NEP.
Carrying out complete collectivization made it possible to transfer funds from the countryside for the needs of industrialization. From the autumn of 1929, peasants were forcibly driven into collective farms. Solid collectivization met with the resistance of the peasants, both active in the form of uprisings and riots, and passive, which was expressed in the flight of people from the countryside and unwillingness to work in collective farms.
The situation in the countryside became so aggravated that in the spring of 1930 the leadership was forced to take steps to eliminate "excesses in the collective farm movement", but the course towards collectivization was continued. Forced collectivization affected the results of agricultural production. The tragic consequences of collectivization include the famine of 1932.
Basically, collectivization was completed by the end of the first five-year plan, when its level reached 62%. By the beginning of World War II, 93% of farms were collectivized.

Economic development of the USSR in 1928-1940.

During the years of the first five-year plans, the USSR made an unprecedented industrial breakthrough. The gross social product grew 4.5 times, the national income more than 5 times. The total volume of industrial production - 6.5 times. At the same time, there are noticeable disproportions in the development of industries of groups A and B. Agricultural production actually marked time.
Thus, as a result of the "socialist offensive", at the cost of enormous efforts, significant results were achieved in turning the country into an industrial power. This contributed to the enhancement of the role of the USSR in the international arena.

Sources: historykratko.com, zubolom.ru, www.bibliotekar.ru, ido-rags.ru, prezentacii.com

Industrial design of the cars of the future

Little boy Eli is only four years old, but his dream has already come true - recently Eli left...

Collectivization of agriculture

Collectivization in the USSR, the amalgamation of small individual peasant farms into large, collective farms through industrial cooperation.

The first collective farms began to emerge at the turn of 1917–1918. At the same time, three of their forms were determined, differing in the degree of socialization:

• TOZs (partnerships for the joint cultivation of land);
• artels (the main means of production are summarized: land, inventory, livestock, including small livestock and poultry);
• communes (a large degree of socialization of production and even life).

In the early years, artels and communes dominated, but during the NEP period, the number of collective farms dropped sharply. In 1926 ᴦ. they united about 1% of peasant households, and mostly the poor. At the same time, as one of the possible ways of socialist reconstruction of the countryside, the creation of state farms directly subsidized from the treasury is considered ( state farms).

The cooperative plan envisaged the transformation of agriculture on the basis of a fundamental technical reconstruction and an upsurge in the general culture of the countryside. By the mid-20s - early 30s. the objective course of the country's socio-economic development has placed the state in front of the extreme importance of resolving these issues. Farming on small patches of land with the help of primitive tools doomed the peasants to hard manual labor, providing them with nothing but the maintenance of existence, the endless reproduction of the same backward working and living conditions. The low level of agricultural production hindered the overall economic development of the country, and put serious obstacles to the industrialization that had begun.

The range of questions related to the history of collectivization is very wide. Here is the development of agriculture under the NEP, and the stratification of the peasantry, the preservation of the kulaks among them at one extreme, the poor peasants and farm laborers at the other, and the development of cooperation, and the inner-party struggle around questions related to the ways and pace of socialist transformations.

Researchers have no doubts that the industrial breakthrough had a serious impact on the situation of peasant farms. At the same time, the country is in the mid-20s. was on the verge of an economic and political crisis. The reasons for this situation were:

• arousing rural discontent over excessive taxation;
• an exorbitant increase in prices for industrial goods and the simultaneous artificial underestimation of state purchase prices for agricultural products (ʼʼprice scissorsʼʼ), as a result of which the peasants, in order to feed themselves, began to grow industrial crops to the detriment of food production, went to logging or construction, or were engaged in handicrafts;
• low purchase prices for agricultural products, ruining the poor and middle peasants (the kulaks split up their farms in order to hide their income);
• shortages of food commodities, leading to higher market prices for them, which dealt a blow to the urban population;
• reduction in sown areas, which led to a reduction in purchases of agricultural machinery.

Late 1927 - early 1928 ᴦ. broke out bread crisis, the food supply of cities, plans for exports and imports were put at risk, the plan for industrialization (the severity of this crisis is evidenced, for example, by the introduction in 1928 of a rationing system for distributing food in cities). The state, on the one hand, was forced to resort to emergency measures in the field of grain procurement, and on the other hand, to take a course towards complete collectivization.

In December 1927 ᴦ. The 15th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks determined that collectivization should become the main task of the party in the countryside. Until now, one of the original stereotypes of the Stalinist concept is firmly preserved, as if this party congress proclaimed a "course towards collectivization". At the same time, such an interpretation of his decisions corresponds rather to subsequent practice, and not to their true content. In fact, at the congress, it was about the development of all forms of cooperation, about the fact that the long-term task of a gradual transition to the collective cultivation of the land will be carried out "on the basis of new technology (electrification, etc.)", and not vice versa: to mechanization on base of collectivization. The congress did not establish any deadlines, let alone the only forms and methods of cooperating peasant farms (V.P. Danilov).

In the same way, the decision of the congress to switch to a policy of attacking the kulaks meant the consistent limitation of the possibilities of peasant farms, their active displacement by economic methods, and not by methods of ruin or forced liquidation. Farms that used hired labor and mechanically driven machines, as well as those engaged in trade, were considered kulak farms (in 1929, they accounted for 2.5–3% of the total number of peasant households).

The tasks of attacking the capitalist elements both in town and in the countryside were formulated with great care: to ensure a relative reduction while still having a "possible absolute growth".

In the late 20s. there were many opponents of the immediate and rapid collectivization of peasant and Cossack farms in the country, who convincingly argued their point of view. Outside the ruling party, these were prominent economists N.D. Kondratiev, A.V. Chayanov. In the ranks of the CPSU (b) N. I. Bukharin warned against hasty collectivization , A.I. Rykov, M.P. Tomsk and many others. In the struggle of opposing points of view at the XV Congress of the CPSU (b) (April 1929 ᴦ.), a compromise point of view was actually developed. Its essence was to recognize the legitimacy and longevity of the development of small peasant farms in the countryside and to provide them with comprehensive assistance by the state. At the same time, the "limited possibilities" of small peasant farming were recognized and the slow development of more productive collective farms was proposed in the future.

At the same time, these moderate plans for socialist transformations were rejected by the group of I.V. Stalin. Contrary to collective decisions, Stalin, in his speeches, mainly at secret meetings, demanded the acceleration of socialist transformations in the countryside.

Initially, the type of cooperation was not determined, but already in March 1928 ᴦ. preference was clearly given collective farms(with artel form of cooperation). In 1928 ᴦ. was accepted law ʼʼOn the general principles of land use and land managementʼʼ, providing collective farms with benefits for obtaining land and using it, lending and taxation. The lease of land by the kulaks was limited, and the allocation of wealthy farms to farms was prohibited. To help the collective farms from November 1928 ᴦ. created state machine and tractor stations (MTS). V. M. Molotov, secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks for work in the countryside, was directly in charge of collective farm construction. The Collective Farm Center of the USSR was created, headed by G.N. Kaminsky.

Stalin announced the transition to the creation of collective farms in the article ʼʼ Year of the great breakʼʼ, published in ʼʼPravdaʼʼ November 7, 1929 ᴦ. He also determined the terms of collectivization - three years. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, in fact, an official course was taken for the complete collectivization of peasant farms.

The lack of clear instructions and laws on the basis of which this process was to be carried out led to administrative arbitrariness. The organization of collective farms involved urban residents who are not familiar with agriculture, with the traditions of village life, the psychology of the villagers (ʼʼtwenty-five thousandthsʼʼ).

The course of collectivization was led by district ʼʼthreesʼʼ- emergency authorities, which included representatives of executive committees, district committees, OGPU. Rural Komsomol members and communists acted as activists, the poor were the striking force, which received significant material benefits.

Highlighted three zones of collectivization with different terms of its implementation:

1. 1) the main areas of commercial agriculture (Volga region, North Caucasus) - one year;
2. 2) Ukraine, Siberia, Ural, Central Black Earth region - two years;
3. 3) other regions of the country - three years.

The party proclaimed the elimination of the kulaks as a class the main task of collectivization. The order of dispossession was determined secret instruction of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the Council of People's Commissars of February 4, 1930 ᴦ., according to which the lease of land and hired labor were prohibited; The kulaks were divided into three categories:

• kulaks, participants in anti-Soviet movements, were ordered to be arrested (their cases were transferred to the OGPU);
• wealthy peasants who enjoyed influence should be resettled within the region or to other regions;
• to settle the rest of the kulaks on the worst lands, outside the collective farm.

Not only the “strong” peasants, but also the so-called middle peasants turned out to be dispossessed. In general, as a result of dispossession, the most literate, experienced, enterprising peasants were expelled from the village.

Started in February-March 1930 ᴦ. massive dispossession caused peasant uprisings, in which more than 700 thousand people took part. The departure of peasant families to the city begins, the mass slaughter of livestock, the uprising.

In order to bring down the wave of growing protests, Stalin in March-April 1930 ᴦ. published articles ʼʼ Dizzy with successʼʼ And ʼʼAnswer to fellow collective farmersʼʼ. In them, all the blame for the ʼʼexcessesʼʼ was placed on the local leadership. Then, on March 1, 1930 ᴦ., was approved Approximate charter of an agricultural artel: along with the ʼʼsocializationʼʼ of the basic means of production in the sole use of collective farmers, household plots, small implements, livestock, and poultry were preserved. The Central Committee of the party adopted a resolution ʼʼOn the fight against distortions of the party line in the collective farm movementʼʼ. The pace of collectivization slowed down, but already in the autumn of 1930 ᴦ. the pressure on the individual farmer intensified again.

Collectivization made it possible to increase the amount of grain on the market. But difficulties with grain harvesting persisted. They took away not only marketable products, but also seeds, as well as grain intended for the payment of collective farmers. August 7, 1932 ᴦ. law was passed ʼʼOn the protection of socialist propertyʼʼ, popularly calledʼʼlaw of five spikeletsʼʼ.

Famine of 1932-1933. stopped collectivization. Opinions began to spread about the revision of policy in the countryside. It was proposed to expand personal subsidiary plots. However, the government has chosen a different path. From January 1933 ᴦ. to November 1934 ᴦ. political departments operated under the MTS, which completed the cleansing of the village from ʼʼalien class elementsʼʼ. In June 1934 ᴦ. It was announced the beginning of a new, final, stage of collectivization. Increased rates of agricultural tax from individual farmers. The norms of obligatory deliveries to the state have increased by 50% in comparison with collective farmers.

At the beginning of 1935 ᴦ. on II Congress of Collective Farmers it was stated that 99% of all cultivated land in the country became "socialist property". Around 1937–1938. collectivization was actually completed (93% of peasant farms were united into collective farms).

In general, agriculture was covered business principles, previously established in the public sector of industry: equalization, rigid centralization.

The breakdown of social relations was accompanied by the destruction of productive forces, the death of millions of heads of working and productive livestock, and most importantly, the destruction of human relations and the collapse of holy ideals. These changes have had a profound influence on the peasantry.

First of all, having succumbed to calls to join the collective farms and socialize the means of production, the peasantry actually turned out to be deceived, as it was alienated from the means of production and lost all right to them.

Secondly, a powerful blow was dealt to the peasant feeling of ownership, since the peasants were deprived of the right to dispose of the results of their labor, the products produced, the fate of which began to be decided by the local party and Soviet authorities.

Thirdly, formally considered (according to the Charter of the agricultural artel) the owners of the collective farm, the collective farmers actually solved secondary issues of the life and life of the collective, since the solution of all fundamental issues was in the hands of the leading party and Soviet bodies.

Fourthly, the collective farmer even lost the right to independently decide where he would like to live and work (this required permission from the authorities).

A logical question that arises when studying this problem is: was collectivization necessary in the USSR?

According to E.N. Oskolkov, modern studies have identified three points of view on this issue. Some researchers and publicists unequivocally deny the legitimacy of collectivization, arguing that it turned the peasantry off the natural historical path, moving along the milestones laid down by P. A. Stolypin, Russia would have formed a powerful agricultural farming sector.

Other researchers believe that Stolypin's way of farming Russia's agriculture was too difficult and lengthy, as it was accompanied by the destruction of the community, the ruin of the majority of the peasants.

Finally, some experts argue that the Russian peasantry itself, due to historical tradition, economic weakness, subsistence production, poor equipment with agricultural implements and livestock, could hardly modernize production in the foreseeable future, and in this regard, collectivization was objectively necessary for the majority of the poor and middle peasants. .

At the same time, researchers believe that it could not have been carried out at such a fast pace, including the entire rural population in the collective farms and using violence (in fact, the process of "secondary enslavement of the peasantry" was taking place).

Historical experience shows that the collective farms themselves, having lost most of the properties of an agricultural artel, have turned into original state enterprises subordinate to local authorities and the party. The probable path for the development of the countryside is the voluntary creation by the peasants themselves of various forms of organization of production, free from state control, building their relations with the state on the basis of equality, with the support of the state, taking into account market conditions.

Collectivization of agriculture - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Collectivization of agriculture" 2017, 2018.

In the mid-1920s, the Soviet leadership took a steady course towards industrialization. But a lot of money was needed for the mass construction of industrial facilities. They decided to take them in the village. Thus began the collectivization.

How it all began

The Bolsheviks made attempts to force the peasants to cultivate the land together even during the civil war. But the people were reluctant to join the communes. The peasantry was drawn to their own land and did not understand why to transfer the property acquired with great difficulty to the "common pot". Therefore, it was mostly the poor who ended up in the communes, and even that went without much desire.

With the beginning of the NEP, collectivization in the USSR slowed down. But already in the second half of the 1920s, when the next party congress decided to carry out industrialization, it became clear that a lot of money was needed for it. No one was going to take loans abroad - after all, sooner or later they would have to be repaid. Therefore, we decided to get the necessary funds through exports, including grain. It was possible to transfer such resources from agriculture only by forcing the peasants to work for the state. Yes, and the mass construction of factories and factories provided that the cities would reach out to be fed. Therefore, collectivization in the USSR was inevitable.

Any event that took place in the history of our country is important, and collectivization in the USSR cannot be briefly considered, since the event concerned a large segment of the population.

In 1927, the XV Congress took place, at which it was decided that it was necessary to change the course of agricultural development. The essence of the discussion was the unification of the peasants into one whole and the creation of collective farms. Thus began the process of collectivization.

Reasons for collectivization

In order to start any process in a country, the citizens of that country must be prepared. This is what happened in the USSR.

The inhabitants of the country were prepared for the process of collectivization and indicated the reasons for its start:

1. The country needed industrialization, which could not be carried out partially. It was necessary to create a strong agricultural sector that would unite the peasants into one.
2. At that time, the government did not look at the experience of foreign countries. And if abroad the process of the agrarian revolution began first, without the industrial revolution, then in our country it was decided to combine both processes in order to correctly build an agrarian policy.
3. In addition to being the main source of food supply, the village also had to become a conduit through which major investments and industrialization could be made.

All these conditions and reasons became the main starting point in the process of beginning the process of collectivization in the Russian countryside.

Goals of collectivization

As in any other process, before launching large-scale changes, it is necessary to set clear goals and understand what needs to be achieved from one direction or another. It is the same with collectivization.

In order to start the process, it was necessary to set the main goals and plan to go towards them:

1. The process was to establish socialist industrial relations. There were no such relations in the village before collectivization.
2. It was taken into account that in the villages almost every inhabitant had his own household, but it was small. Through collectivization, it was planned to create a large collective farm, uniting small farms into collective farms.
3. The need to get rid of the class of kulaks. This could be done only by exclusively using the dispossession regime. What did the Stalinist government do.

How was the collectivization of agriculture in the USSR

The government of the Soviet Union understood that the Western economy developed due to the existence of colonies, which were not in our country. But there were villages. It was planned to create collective farms according to the type and likeness of the colonies of foreign countries.

At that time, the Pravda newspaper was the main source from which the inhabitants of the country received information. In 1929, it published an article entitled "The Year of the Great Break". She was the start of the process.

In the article, the leader of the country, whose authority at that time was quite high, announced the need to destroy the individual imperialist economy. In December of the same year, the beginning of the New Economic Policy and the liquidation of the kulaks as a class were announced.

The developed documents characterized the establishment of strict deadlines for the implementation of the dispossession process for the North Caucasus and the Middle Volga. For Ukraine, Siberia and the Urals, a period of two years was set, three years was set for all other regions of the country. Thus, in the first five-year plan, all individual farms were to be converted into collective farms.

Processes were simultaneously going on in the villages: a course towards dispossession and the creation of collective farms. All this was done by violent methods, and by 1930, about 320 thousand peasants became poor. All property, and there was a lot of it - about 175 million rubles - was transferred to the ownership of collective farms.

1934 is considered the year of completion of collectivization.

Q&A rubric

• Why was collectivization accompanied by dispossession?

The process of transition to collective farms could not have been carried out in any other way. Voluntarily, only poor peasants went to the collective farms, who could not donate anything for public use.
More prosperous peasants tried to keep their economy in order to develop it. The poor were against this process, because they wanted equality. Dispossession was caused by the need to start a general forced collectivization.

• Under what slogan was the collectivization of peasant farms carried out?

"Complete collectivization!"

• Which book vividly describes the period of collectivization?

In the 1930s and 1940s, there was a huge amount of literature describing the processes of collectivization. One of the first to draw attention to this process was Leonid Leonov in his work “Sot”. The novel "Shadows Disappear at Noon" by Anatoly Ivanov tells how collective farms were created in Siberian villages.

And of course, “Virgin Soil Upturned” by Mikhail Sholokhov, where you can get acquainted with all the processes that took place at that time in the village.

• Can you name the pros and cons of collectivization?

Positive points:

• the number of tractors and combines increased on the collective farms;
• thanks to the food distribution system, during the Second World War it was possible to avoid mass starvation in the country.

Negative aspects of the transition to collectivization:

• led to the destruction of the traditional peasant way of life;
• the peasants did not see the results of their own labor;
• a consequence of the reduction in the number of cattle;
• the peasant class ceased to exist as a class of proprietors.

What are the features of collectivization?

Features include the following:

1. After the process of collectivization began, industrial growth took place in the country.
2. The association of peasants into collective farms allowed the government to manage the collective farms more effectively.
3. The entry into the collective farm of each peasant made it possible to begin the process of developing a common collective farm economy.

Are there films about collectivization in the USSR?

There are a large number of films about collectivization, and they were filmed during the period of collectivization. The events of that time are most clearly reflected in the films: "Happiness", "Old and New", "Land and Freedom".

The results of collectivization in the USSR

After the process was completed, the country began to count the losses, and the results were disappointing:

• grain production decreased by 10%;
• the number of cattle decreased by 3 times;
• The years 1932-1933 were terrible for the inhabitants of the country. If earlier the village could feed not only itself, but also the city, now it could not even feed itself. This time is considered to be a hungry year;
• despite the fact that people were starving, almost all grain stocks were sold abroad.

The process of mass collectivization destroyed the prosperous population of the countryside, but at the same time a large number of the population remained in the collective farms, which was kept in it by force. Thus, the policy of the formation of Russia as an industrial state was carried out.