After a year-long discussion in the press about the problems of agricultural development, the XV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) proclaimed a course towards collectivization. The first stage of collectivization in 1928-1929 passed relatively calmly. The poor and the bulk of the middle peasants joined the collective farms. However, the authorities, convinced of the correctness of the course and the first successes of collectivization, did not particularly care about broad explanatory work among the peasantry and especially among its wealthy part. Was not prepared and the legislative framework. However, the authorities hurried the local authorities to complete “complete” collectivization. Speaking at the All-Union Conference of Marxist Agrarians in December 1929, J.V. Stalin stated: “... from the policy of limiting the exploitative tendencies of the kulaks, we moved on to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class.” After this, coercive measures began to be used more widely and harshly. The situation in the countryside has worsened sharply. Dispossession was accompanied by exile of kulak families “outside Ukraine” or deportation “to the Yarki”. Local authorities made serious excesses. The Starobelsky district committee of the CP(b)U was forced to send a letter to the district committees dated February 10, 1930, which stated:

“... In a number of areas, unacceptable distortions of party directives and criminally crude administrative measures are observed both on the part of local rural workers and responsible officials. During dispossession, in addition to gross violation of direct instructions: “Do not touch the middle peasant farms under any circumstances,” criminal actions by local workers are allowed on the ground. Thus, during the confiscation of property, completely unnecessary, priceless household items are taken from the kulaks: pillows, linen, clothes, all food, etc., which radically distorts our directives on this issue.

The Bureau of the District Party Committee categorically obliges the district committees to take the most decisive measures to prevent such excesses and to decisively eliminate greedy administrative methods in their work. Those guilty of perverting party directives should be removed from their jobs and brought to justice.

Secretary About PC Prikhodko.

(State Archives of the Lugansk Region, f. R-1186, op. 2, d.80, l24)

“... on 02.20.30. 72.39% of farms and 76.33% of land were collectivized. There are 383 collective farms in the district. On average, a collective farm has 155 households with 1,590 acres of land. Forms of collective farms: communes - 19, artels - 339, SZZs - 25. Dispossession work is currently underway. As of March 1, 1930, 2,404 kulak farms were dispossessed.”

Already on March 12, 1930, the first train No. 153 left the Svatovo station, taking 60 families of peasants from the Starobelsky district to the Onega region of the Northern Territory. They were settled in Onega, Maloshuyka and Pering-Ozero, which is a day’s walk away White Sea. Then the trains will leave, taking the dispossessed to Konosha and Plesetsk of the same Northern Territory, Chusovskoy, Krasnovishersky districts and Lysva Sverdlovsk region, at construction sites in Nizhny Tagil. The kulaks offered serious resistance to the collectivization process.

In 1932, collectivization was practically completed. 59 collective farms, a state farm named after Shevchenko and a stud farm No. 123 were created in the region. However, the difficulties in the collective farm movement were enormous. There were no specialists - agronomists, mechanics, livestock specialists, veterinarians. To help collective farms and state farms in the region, two machine and tractor stations were created - Starobelskaya and Podgorovskaya (MTS), which took on the main heavy agricultural work. The mechanization of agricultural work gave impetus to more efficient development of agricultural production. In 1935, small farms were consolidated. In the region, out of 59 farms, 37 and two state farms remained. At the end of 1936, the first agricultural exhibition was held in the region, its participants demonstrated a previously unprecedented level of production. The collective farm "Chervonny Prapor" from Kuryachevka grew a winter wheat harvest of 23 centners, Ulyana Gomilka's team from the Kamensk collective farm "Komsomolets" grew 45.5 centners of corn, Anna Shishova's team from the collective farm "New Life" harvested 20 centners of sunflower, vegetable grower Leonty Grin from the Baidovsky collective farm named after. Chapaev received 350 centners of tomatoes from 0.5 hectares and 20 centners of cabbage from 0.3 hectares.

Tractor drivers from Starobelshchyna were the first in the region to support the Stakhanov movement. The first Stakhanovites were Luka Borodavka, A. Derkach, I. Dubovoy, I. Kotlyarov, N.A. Govtva. All of them became participants in the first regional congress of tractor drivers-Stakhanovites, which took place on November 3, 1935 in Donetsk.

36. If in 1928 2% of all farms in Kazakhstan were collectivized, then by October 1931 the following were collectivized: 65%

37. The main form of collective farm construction in the livestock-raising regions of Kazakhstan during the years of collectivization should have been: Partnership for joint cultivation and mowing.

38. In the grain regions of Kazakhstan, the main form of collective farm construction should be: Agricultural artel.

39. In 1932, in the livestock-raising regions of Kazakhstan, it was proposed to create partnerships for joint cultivation of the land as a transitional step: to state farms

40. In what year, during the collectivization of agriculture, were the first machine and tractor stations (MTS) created on the territory of Kazakhstan? 1929

41. In agriculture, MTS contributed to the development of: technical base

42. The mechanic became the central figure in the village after: collectivization

43. The cause of the famine that broke out in 1930-1932. in Kazakhstan there was a policy pursued by the leadership: collectivization and simultaneous settlement

44. In what years of collectivization of agriculture in Kazakhstan is considered, not without reason, “the years of great disaster,” the greatest tragedy of the Kazakh people? 1930-1932

45. Which years of the collectivization period are considered the years of the great disaster? 1932-1933

46. ​​In 1930-1932 erupted in the country: Hunger.

47. In 1930-1932. direct losses from hunger and epidemics and other hardships amounted to: 1,750 thousand Kazakhs.

48. How much was the population in Kazakhstan on the eve of the famine of 1930-1932? and how many died from hunger: There were 6.2 million people, 2.1 million people died

49. In the 20-30s of the 20th century, the share of Kazakhs in Kazakhstan decreased to 38% as a result of: Hunger and migration

50. The reason for the outflow of population from Kazakhstan in 1930-1932. are famine and total repression during the period: Collectivization and simultaneous settlement.

51. During the period of collectivization, as a result of repression and famine, only from 1930 to 1931 the following people emigrated from Kazakhstan: 1 million 70 thousand

52. How many people migrated from Kazakhstan to escape the famine caused by collectivization? over 1 million people

53. One of the consequences of collectivization is:

54. The main directions of migration of Kazakhs during the years of collectivization were: China, Iran, Afghanistan.

55. Areas of compact residence from which participants in the uprising against collectivization were forced to leave for Iran and Afghanistan: Mangystau, Wil.

56. Years of armed resistance against forced collectivization in Kazakhstan: 1929-1931

57. How many uprisings took place in Kazakhstan in 1929-1931? 372

58. 372 armed uprisings of Kazakh sharua in 1929-1931, directed against collectivization, were classified by the Kazakh Regional Committee as: bandit-basmach movement

59. How many people took part in the uprisings of 1929-31? about 80 thousand people

60. In 1929-1931. in Kazakhstan the following were convicted for participation in uprisings and unrest: more than 5.5 thousand people

61. The uprising of the Turgai peasants, regarded by the Kazakh regional party committee as a manifestation of the bandit-Basmachi movement: Batpakkari uprising

63. Name the rebellious region where the number of rebels in 1930 reached 5 thousand people: Karakum

64. Number of people sentenced to death for participation in the Karakum uprising: 175

65. Suppressed by the eighth division of the Red Army, 175 people were sentenced to death, this is how the Karakum uprising of Sharua against: collectivization

66. A major source of popular discontent during the years of collectivization was: Semipalatinsk district

67. Of the 372 armed uprisings of the Kazakhs against collectivization, the uprising in: Suzak region.

68. What kind of uprising are we talking about: “Early in the morning of February 7, 1930, the rebels, about 400 people, broke into the regional center of the village. The village of Chulak-Kurgan and others were captured. The secretary of the district committee was killed. But they were defeated: 360 rebels were killed, 7 people were wounded, 276 were arrested”? about the Suzak uprising

69. The largest uprising of the collectivization period occurred in the regional center: Suzak

70. One of the largest peasant uprisings - the Suzak uprising - occurred in: early 1930s

71. During the period of collectivization, the rebellious peasants captured the regional center: In Sozak.

72. Name one of the leaders of the peasant uprising in the Suzak region: Dzhakupov

73. One of the leaders of the Irgiz peasant uprising of 1930: Kanaev Akzharkyn

74. Areas in which the Sharois who participated in the uprising against collectivization in the spring of 1931 were completely destroyed: Abyralinsky, Shyngystausky, Shubartausky.

75. How many peasants were brought to justice during the years of collectivization? more than 100 thousand people

76. Criminal cases of the so-called “gangs of uprisings” against collectivization were considered by: The extrajudicial body is the “troika”.

77. As a result of collectivization, a traditional industry for Kazakhstan actually ceased to exist: camel breeding

78. The number of livestock handed over to the state in the Chubargau region in 1931-32: 80%

79. In the fight against the consequences of the Stalinist model of collectivization of agriculture, the Central Committee of the Communist Party adopted a resolution in: September 1932

80. In the early 30s, in order to improve the situation of the Sharua, the Soviet state: provided technical and financial assistance to settling farms

81. How much has the number of cattle in Kazakhstan decreased from 1928-1932? from 6.5 million to 965 thousand

82. In 1929, the number of livestock in the republic was: 40.5 million

83. How much did the total number of livestock in Kazakhstan decrease from 1928 to 1932? from 40.5 million to 4.5 million

85. Specific gravity Kazakhstan in the all-Union grain production in the period from 1928 to 1932. decreased: from 9% to 3%

86. Gross grain harvest in Kazakhstan for the period from 1928 to 1940. decreased: 1.5 times

87. One of the consequences of collectivization is: migration outside the republic of over 1 million Kazakhs

88. The congress of collective farmers-shock workers took place in: 1935

89. In all regions of Kazakhstan, the discussion of the exemplary Charter of the agricultural artel in 1935 was held simultaneously with the presentation to collective farms of: State acts for the perpetual use of land.

90. Area of ​​irrigated land developed in 1938-1940: 145 million hectares

91. What quantity trucks worked on collective and state farm fields in 1940? 14 thousand

92. In the 30s of the twentieth century, on the one hand, public ownership of the means of production was proclaimed, on the other: There was an alienation of peasants from the land.

Politics of the “Small October”

1. The course for power reforms in the Kazakh village under the leadership of F. Goloshchekin was called: "Small October"

3. In 1925 -1933 The first secretary of Kazraykom was: F. Goloshchekin

4. First secretary of Kazkraikom during the period of industrialization: F. Goloshchekin

5. In what years was F. Goloshchekin the first secretary of the Kazkraikom party? 1925-1933

6. Who owns the words spoken in the 20s of the XX century: “Comrade Goloshchekin! I think that the policy outlined in this note is the only correct policy? I.V.Stalin

7. I. Stalin recognized the command-bureaucratic methods of leadership of F. Goloshchekin in Kazakhstan as: The only correct policy.

8. Who owns the following statement: what happened here before the autumn of 1925 could be called the prehistory of Kazakhstan...”? To the First Secretary of the Kazakh Regional Committee F.I. Goloshchekin.

9. Conductor of the idea of ​​regional leadership in 1925-1933 in Kazakhstan. F. Goloshchekin.

10. Who pursued the course for the development of Kazakhstan as a raw material base for the industrialized regions of the USSR? F. Goloshchekin

11. F. Goloshchekin carried out industrialization in the region using the following methods: Command and administrative

12. The imposition of the command-bureaucratic method is associated with the name of the first secretary of Kazkrankom in 1925-1933: F. Goloshchekina.

13. In the 20s of the twentieth century, the following method was introduced at all levels of party work: command and administrative

14. During industrialization in Kazakhstan, the need was qualified as a manifestation of local nationalism: revision of the colonial structure of the region's economy.

15. Goloshchekin carried out industrialization in the region using methods: Command and administrative

16. During industrialization, the need to revise the colonial structure of the region’s economy was qualified as a manifestation of: local nationalism

17. Goloshchekin qualified the position of reviewing the progress of industrialization in Kazakhstan as a manifestation of local nationalism: S. Sadvakasova.

18. “Kazakhstan was and remains a colony...” S. Sadvakasov said bitterly, summing up: Industrialization

19. Who said the following words about the results of industrialization in Kazakhstan: “Kazakhstan was and remains a colony”? S.Sadvakasov

20. Who was a supporter of the development of Kazakhstan, taking into account its economic capabilities, natural and human resources? S.Sadvakasov

21. Charge brought against those who opposed the “Sovietization of villages” F.I. Goloshchekin: Nationalist

22. The course of exacerbating the class struggle in the village under the slogan “Sovietization of the village” was chosen: F. Goloshchekin

23. In the “Sovietization of the village” and collectivization, the authorities were helped by: "supers" and "false activists"

24. Campaigns for grain procurement, redistribution of hay and arable land, as well as confiscation of the farms of semi-feudal lords, formed the basis of the policy: "Sovietization of the village"

25. The opposition to the course of the “Small October” defended the idea: Bringing industry closer to sources of raw materials.

26. Public figures of Kazakhstan who opposed the course of the “Little October Revolution”: S. Sadvakasov and Zh. Mynbaev.

27. S. Sadvokasov and Zh. Mynbaev were accused of local nationalism during the period: during industrialization

28. “Kazakhstan was and remains a colony...” he said bitterly: S.M.Sadvokasov

29. A political figure in Kazakhstan who spoke out against the course of the “Small October”: S. Sadvokasov.

30. Who opposed the mass relocation of workers to Kazakhstan from other parts of the country? S. Sadvakasov

31. Attempts by S. Sadvakasov and Zh. Mynbaev to review the implementation of industrialization in the republic were considered by F. Goloshchekin as a manifestation of: local nationalism.

32. Party leaders accused of “national deviationism” in 1926: Sadvakasov, Khojanov

33. Charge brought against those who opposed the “Sovietization of villages” by F.I. Goloshchekin. Nationalist.

34. The letter from the five, written in July 1932, was addressed to: F. Goloshchekin

35. In 1932, a group of leaders of the republic sent a “Letter of Five” to F. Goloshchekin: About famine and the causes of the disaster.

36. About the famine, about the causes of the catastrophe in Kazakhstan caused by collectivization in 1932, a group of leaders of the republic sent a message to F. Goloshchekin: "Letter of Five"

37. About the famine and the causes of the disaster in July 1932, a group of republican leaders wrote a “letter of five”: Goloshchekin.

38. Evidence that the leadership knew about the scale of the disaster in Kazakhstan that arose as a result of collectivization is the letter: T. Ryskulova to Stalin.

39. About the scale of victims during collectivization, a public figure in Kazakhstan wrote to Stalin in his letter in March 1933: T. Ryskulov.

40. T. Ryskulov repeatedly wrote letters to Stalin about the scale of the disaster in Kazakhstan, which arose as a result of: Collectivization

41. For the consequences of forced collectivization in Kazakhstan, the leadership of Kazraykom and the Council of People's Commissars of the republic, headed by Goloshchekin: did not bear any responsibility to the people

Libmonster ID: RU-10306

(1929 - 1930)

The rich factual and digital material presented in reports and speeches at the XVIII All-Union Conference of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks demonstrated one of the main features of the development of the national economy of the country of victorious socialism. It develops according to the laws of expanded socialist reproduction, meaning a steady increase in production in all sectors of the national economy, a steady increase in savings and an increase in the material level of the working people. This situation, however, did not arise immediately: it was the result of a persistent struggle for the triumph of the general line of the Lenin-Stalin party, the line for the socialist industrialization of the country. It was created only as a result of victorious collective farm construction, accompanied by persistent and cruel class battles.

Even 10 - 12 years ago, at the beginning of the construction of the first Stalinist five-year plan, the national economy of the USSR was based on two equal, contradictory foundations: on large, advanced, socialist industry, controlled and planned by the proletarian state, which developed according to the laws of expanded socialist reproduction, and small-peasant , individual, technically backward, low-commodity agriculture, which did not always have the opportunity to carry out even simple reproduction.

The way out of the contradiction, as Lenin and Stalin repeatedly pointed out, was to rebuild small, technically backward peasant farms into large ones on the basis of advanced technology and agronomy. Then agriculture could also develop according to the laws of expanded socialist reproduction and would become the same a solid basis for the socialist system, as is socialist industry.

The solution was to collectivize the peasant economy and build state farms. However, only the victory of socialist industrialization created the necessary preconditions and opened ample opportunities for mass collectivization. Without this victory, the struggle for mass collectivization would have been doomed to failure, as was clearly demonstrated by the failed attempts on the part of some local councils in the Ukraine and elsewhere during the years civil war premature planting with. -X. commun.

The slogan for the broad development of the collective farm movement was given by the party at the XV Congress, when the successes of socialist industrialization predetermined the question of “who will win” in the field of industry in favor of socialism. However, the slogan of mass collectivization received practical implementation somewhat later.

As is known, the year of the great turning point in the field of collective farm construction was 1929. Since the summer of 1929, the collective farm movement entered a period of complete collectivization. 1929 and 1930 were a period of unprecedented scope for the collective farm movement.

In a number of places, the peasant poor and middle peasants in entire villages, districts, and districts joined the collective farm. Characterizing this turning point in collective farm construction, V. M. Molotov at a meeting of the expanded Presidium of the ECCI on February 25, 1930 said:

“Complete collectivization, i.e. collectivization, in which 80-90% of peasant farms participate, covers not only individual regions and districts, but also whole regions and national republics. Such regions currently include primarily the North Caucasus and Central -chernozem region... Over the past three decades, as many peasant farms have joined collective farms as were united in collective farms over the previous 12 years" 1 .

On the basis of collectivization, the poor and middle peasant strata of the village rose up in a fierce struggle against the kulaks, a struggle that broke in open battle the resistance of the kulaks, this latter,

* The article is written on the basis of factual material collected by the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

1 V. Molotov “At a new stage”, p. 15. Giz. 1930.

page 14
the most numerous exploiting class, which was a reserve within the USSR for the capitalist encirclement in its struggle against the USSR. The collective farm movement, which took on the character of a powerful, growing anti-kulak avalanche, sweeping away the kulak resistance along its path, was of the utmost political importance.

At the forefront of the collective farm movement of 1929 - 1930 was one of the main grain-growing regions of the USSR - the North Caucasus. At numerous meetings in the villages and at regional conferences, grain growers made decisions on the transition to complete collectivization and demanded the eviction of the kulaks. Thus, the grain growers of the village of Tikhoretskaya wrote in their instructions to the regional congress on complete collectivization:

“The farm laborers, poor and middle peasants of the village of Tikhoretskaya warmly welcome the decision of the regional organization to carry out complete collectivization. Grain growers understand very well that only through the socialization of agricultural production is the path to increasing productivity, expanding sowing, making labor easier and generally improving the lives of workers.”

The Red partisans, the poor and middle peasants of the village of Mostovoy (North Caucasus) demanded “to remove from the road everything that interferes with complete collectivization” 1 .

Sweeping away the kulaks on their way, the peasants of the North Caucasus in whole villages poured into collective farms in a stormy stream, and already in the spring of 1930 a number of areas of complete collectivization were created. In 1930, across the entire region, collective farms covered 59% of poor and middle peasant farms, compared to 11% in 1929. At the same time, the percentage of middle peasant farms increased sharply: in 1929, middle peasant farms accounted for 27% of all collective farmers, in 1930 - 50%. The middle peasants went to collective farms.

The same thing happened in the Middle Volga region. On October 1, 1928, 2.3% of peasant farms in the region were collectivized, on November 1, 1929 - 25%, and by December 15, 1929 - 35%. By October 1929, there were 5 areas of complete collectivization in the region and over 30 areas in which collective farms covered over 50% of peasant farms.

By the spring of 1930, 20 machine and tractor stations were organized in the region, which cultivated over 1.5 million hectares of collective farm land.

The Lower Volga region also did not lag behind other grain-producing regions. In the spring, a convoy of 28 tractors produced by the Krasny Putilovets plant arrived in the village of Bolshaya Alypanka, Balandivgsky district. Up to 1,500 people from all over the region gathered to meet the tractors, and for two months each village sent its delegates to make sure that the tractors received were not a fiction. The results were immediate.

American journalist Anna-Louise. Builds after familiarizing herself with the progress of collectivization of the Lower Volga, she wrote: “Collective farms are organized in hundreds. Entire villages are united into one collective farm. Then dozens of villages are united into one collective farm of even larger sizes. Finally, entire regions, entire districts are organized collectively, planning their future in a new way farming and erasing all the old boundaries" 2.

The collective farm movement also captured remote corners Soviet Union. In the backward Buryat-Mongolian Autonomous Republic, collectivization in 1930 increased to 21%3.

In Turkmenistan, where not so long ago there were remnants of semi-feudal relations, and in some places pre-feudal ones, by the spring of 1930 collectivization reached 25.9%.

Newspaper "Soviet Steppe" (Kazakhstan) in M? 8 dated January 10, 1930 reports: “In the Semipalatinsk district, preparatory work has begun to transfer three districts to complete collectivization: Shemonansinsky, Zhan-Semeysky, Belagachsky. The entire population of these regions will be collectivized by the end of 1931.”

Collective farm crops in Georgia in 1930 amounted to 135,900 hectares compared to 11,700 hectares in 1929.

A correspondent from the Kasum-Ismail district of complete collectivization, Ganja district, Azerbaijan, reports: “The region is moving to complete collectivization, uniting up to 7 thousand farms with a total sown area of ​​grain and industrial crops over 31 thousand hectares. A huge wasteland of 22 thousand hectares will be carefully processed. 40 collective farms have already been organized" 4 . .

The vigorous collective farm movement did not pass the attention of foreign correspondents.

2 Anna-Louise Strong “Complete collectivization of the Lower Volga region”, p. 7. Giz. 1930.

3 Central archive of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR, collective farm center fund, inventory 213, bundle 13, file 33.

page 15
comrades, who looked with the greatest anxiety at the victorious march of collectivization. A correspondent for the Chicago Daily News wrote in a telegram dated August 24, 1929: “The world is accustomed to receive stunning information from Soviet Russia, but nothing can cause greater surprise, perhaps shock, than the amazing growth of collective agriculture, which is now developing with such rapidity that if the present pace is continued, it will soon bring about a decisive reorganization of the agricultural economy.

I have just finished a trip through Ukraine, across this vast steppe that stretches for a thousand miles from the Don to Turkestan.

I saw a horizon covered with collective wheat, I saw American tractors plowing a furrow, disappearing behind the horizon. I saw threshing machines spitting out straw near whole mountains of sheaves, red-haired Russian boys and girls loading bags of growing gold from Russia, and red caravans heading to the elevator by the railway..." 1.

The famous American correspondent of the New York Times newspaper Duranty reported in a telegram that the American writer Maurice Gindus, who returned from a trip to Belarusian and Ukrainian villages, in a conversation with Duranty said: “Only now can we talk about the victory of the revolution, about the progress of the socialist system in the countryside. In past years there was a lot of talk about collective farming, but now it is becoming a reality, accompanied by the help of agronomists and specialists with selected seeds and mechanical engines provided to the peasantry for preferential terms. The desire for collectivization embraces the entire peasantry" 2.

At the call of the party, thousands of workers from industrial centers moved to the aid of the collectivized village (the decision of the November Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1929 to send 25 thousand workers to the village).

Boilermaker Drozdov (North Caucasus region) wrote: “I, an old partisan, once, without hesitation, irrigated my family and went to defend the party and Soviet power. Now that the slogan “Turn the North Caucasus into a continuous collective farm in 11/2 years!” has been thrown out! “It is with great pleasure that I go to the village to once again fulfill my duty to the party and the Soviet government” 3.

The workers enthusiastically went to the aid of the village, to carry out a revolution in the village under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party.

The peasants greeted the workers with joy. General meeting peasants of the collective farm "Red Torch", a suburban area of ​​the Borisoglebsky district, wrote: "We thank the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) for sending a 25-thousander who skillfully leads our collective farm." The report of the collective farmers of the “Red Ivanovo Weaver”, Smolensk district, said: “We express our gratitude to the Communist Party for sending us 25 thousand workers” 4.

The attempt of the kulaks to arm the middle peasants against the 25 thousand people was not successful."

The 25 thousand people brought the organizational experience of the working class to the collective farm village. Here is what one of the 25-thousanders, the chairman of the collective farm named after the 12th anniversary of the October Revolution (Middle Volga), wrote: “The growth of the collective farm is going on all the time, so we are conducting a persistent explanatory campaign among individual farmers to get involved in the collective farm. Almost all individual farmers carry statements in their pockets , they are waiting to see how we will distribute the harvest. In terms of labor organization, our collective farm is exemplary, work is organized into teams. Lately became the most important core of the work of the entire collective farm" 5 .

2 5-thousanders were the best propagandists, agitators and organizers of collective farm affairs. “Here we have to encourage the poor and middle peasant masses, the peasants of the backward national region, to the great cause of building socialism,”6 writes the Moscow worker Inzhevatkin, who was later killed by the bays, enemies of collectivization, from distant Kyrgyzstan. Comrade Stalin wrote about such worker propagandists: “It must be admitted that of all existing and possible propagandists of the collective farm movement, worker propagandists are the best propagandists among the peasant masses” 7 .

Thus, the poor-middle peasantry

1 Central archive of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR, collective farm center fund, inventory 232, bundle 15, file 152.

3 Central archive of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR, collective farm center fund, inventory 242, bundle 2, file 25

4 Central Archive of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR, collectivization fund, inventory 242, bundle 2, file 16

5 Given in the book by E.P. Gurevich “The Proletariat at the Collective Farm Construction Site”, p. 13

6 A. Isbach “One of 25 thousand”, p. 82.

7 I. Stalin “Questions of Leninism”, p. 270. 11th ed.

page 16
in alliance with the working class and under its leadership, in the spring of 1930, it began decisive battles for complete collectivization, which ended in the complete victory of socialism in the countryside.

The rapid pace of collectivization in 1929-1930 was prepared by all the previous policies of the party and government. The turn of the middle peasants towards socialism, their break with the age-old craving for their own piece of land took place slowly and gradually.

This turn was the result of a number of important facts that Comrade Stalin pointed out at the 16th Party Congress. First of all, the development of our heavy industry (especially mechanical engineering), which gained the opportunity to supply agriculture on a large scale with tractors and agricultural machines, had a decisive influence on the course of events. In advantages new technology The peasant masses were convinced of the primitive tools of agricultural labor on peasant plots of land when they became acquainted with it on large state farms, these centers of advanced, socialist agriculture. For example, the state farm "Giant" (North Caucasus) was visited in a short time by up to 50 thousand individual peasants and up to 2 thousand agricultural representatives, and all of them, having become acquainted with the farm of the "Giant", became ardent agitators of the collective farm movement.

The peasant masses were also convinced of the advantages of the collective farm system by comparing the results of work on individual peasant farms and on collective farms, many of which, having already been in existence for a number of years, showed a significant increase in labor productivity. Agricultural cooperation played a major role in the turn of the peasant masses towards socialism, educating the peasant with his individualistic psychology in the spirit of collectivism. For ten years, the party and government, implementing cooperative plan Lenin, paid exceptional attention to the cooperation of the peasantry. As a result, over 50% of peasant farms were covered by all types of cooperation. Thus, as of October 1, 1929, rural cooperation covered 61.4% of peasant farms in the Urals, 58.3% in the Central Black Sea Region, and 41% in the Moscow Region.

Finally, the decisive struggle of the Soviet government against the kulaks during the grain procurement campaign of 1928 and 1929, when the embittered kulak, burying grain in the ground, tried to starve the working people of cities and industrial centers, also played an exceptional role in the turn of the middle peasants towards socialism. The poor and middle peasant masses were actively involved in this struggle and received strong support from the Soviet government. The economic dependence of the poor and middle peasant masses on the kulaks was undermined. The fist was isolated.

At the same time, the very first steps of mass collectivization yielded brilliant economic results. The kulaks, which were serious producers of commercial grain necessary to feed the population and the Red Army, lost their economic importance in 1929.

In 1927, the kulaks produced about 130 million poods of marketable grain, while collective and state farms produced only about 35 million poods. Therefore, then there could be no talk of the immediate liquidation of the kulaks as a class, because the working class and the Red Army could be left without bread. To solve the grain problem, it was necessary to replace the commodity grain of the kulaks with the commodity grain of state and collective farms. In 1929, thanks to the intensive construction of state farms and the rapid growth of collectivization, state and collective farms produced more than 130 million poods of marketable grain, that is, more than the kulaks in 1927, and in 1930 it was planned that state and collective farms would produce more than 400 million poods of marketable grain, that is more than three times what the kulaks gave in 1927. Thus, the time had come when the socialist state could begin to eliminate the last exploiting class - the kulaks. "... the movement of class forces in the country's economy and the presence of the material base necessary to replace the kulak grain production with the production of collective and state farms, made it possible for the Bolshevik Party to move from a policy of limiting the kulaks to a new policy, to a policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class, on the basis of complete collectivization" 1 .

Until 1929, the kulaks were limited in their exploitative tendencies by a number of legislative acts (restrictions on the size of land leases, hiring work force), was subject to increased taxes, was obliged to sell grain to the state at fixed prices, and was limited in political rights. All these restrictions were aimed at undermining the economic power of the kulak and his political activity, at retarding his class growth, but

1 "Short course on the history of the CPSU (b)", p. 291.

page 17
not to destroy it as a class. The new policy was aimed at eliminating the kulaks as a class.

The main condition for the elimination of the kulaks as a class was the transition to complete collectivization. The success of the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class was determined by the fact that complete collectivization had to take place in the form of the unconditionally voluntary entry of the poor and middle peasant masses into collective farms and that the liquidation of the kulaks had to be carried out by the offensive of the collective farm masses themselves against the kulaks with the economic and political support of the Soviet state. Any administration in this great historical matter was thus excluded.

The main provisions of the policy of eliminating the kulaks were formulated in the historical resolution 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.” Based on the fact that the sown area of ​​collective farms, which according to the five-year plan was supposed to be 22 - 24 million hectares in the last year of the five-year plan, already at the end of 1929 turned out to be higher than these planned assumptions, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks established the sown area of ​​collective farms for the spring of 1930 in the amount of 30 million hectares, that is, more than was provided for by the five-year plan in the last year of the five-year plan.

The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, having revised the pace of collectivization outlined by the first five-year plan, based on the diversity of conditions in various regions and territories, in its resolution established and different terms completion of complete collectivization in various regions. Instead of collectivizing 20% ​​of the sown area in the last year of the five-year plan, as planned by the first five-year plan, the decree determined a new, accelerated pace. The USSR was divided into 3 groups of regions: for the most important grain-growing regions, such as the Lower Volga, Middle Volga, and Northern Caucasus, the completion date for complete collectivization was already set for the autumn of 1930, but not later than spring 1931; for the second group of grain regions the deadline was set for the spring of 1932; for the third group (the so-called consuming regions) - at the end of the five-year plan, that is, in 1933.

Further, the resolution outlined a number of state measures to assist collective farm construction. These include: accelerating the construction of tractor factories, complex agricultural machinery factories and increasing the production of agricultural machinery in old factories; creation of horse-drawn bases and mixed: tractor-horse bases instead of rental points left over from the past; switching the land management activities of the USSR People's Commissariat of Agriculture to serve exclusively areas of complete collectivization; increasing loans to collective farms in 1930 from 270 million rubles to 500 million rubles; strengthening production assistance to collective farms from state farms; training of leading collective farm personnel. The decree approved the agricultural artel as the main form of collective farms, in which the main means of production (dead and living inventory, outbuildings, commodity-productive livestock). Finally, the resolution emphasized the need to decisively combat any attempts to restrain the development of the collective farm movement due to a lack of tractors and complex machines. At the same time, the resolution warned party organizations against any kind of “decree” of the collective farm movement from above.

On February 1, 1930, the resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On measures to strengthen the socialist reorganization of agriculture in areas of complete collectivization and to combat the kulaks" was published. This was a legislative act on the liquidation of the kulaks of the kate class in areas of complete collectivization. This act abolished the lease of land and the use of hired labor in areas of complete collectivization, that is, the main economic conditions for the existence of the kulaks as an exploitative class. Regional and regional executive committees were given the right to take the necessary measures to combat the kulaks, up to and including the complete confiscation of the property of the kulaks and their eviction from certain districts, territories and regions.

The spring sowing campaign of 1930 was of decisive importance in the matter of collectivization. “Its success,” said Comrade Molotov at a meeting of the expanded Presidium of the ECCI on February 25, 1930, “means the victory of collectivization and the defeat of the kulaks as a class. This will be a decisive success in the construction of socialism in our country” 1 .

Even the English conservative press understood the historical significance of the spring sowing season of 1930. English conservative newspaper "Observer" in the issue

1 V. Molotov “At a new stage”, p. 47.

page 18
dated February 2, 1930, she wrote: “... all eyes in RUSSIA are turned to the “agrarian front”, on which a struggle is taking place, which in time will shine brighter in history than nine-tenths of the so-called decisive battles of the world” 1.

The party and government devoted a lot of effort and attention to the spring sowing campaign of 1930. Of utmost importance for the organizational and material strengthening of collective farms and for the success of the sowing campaign were the November decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on 25 thousand people and the appeal of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, which emphasized the extreme importance of the spring agricultural campaign in connection with the rapid growth of collectivization, as well as a number of measures of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture, the Kolkhoz Center for organization of production on collective farms.

To strengthen party and mass work in the countryside, in accordance with the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On party and mass work on state farms and among the surrounding population", at the end of January 53 editorial and printing teams with full equipment were sent to the districts to publish collective farm district newspapers . Komsomol members organized a number of cultural trips to areas of blunder collectivization.

The measures of the party and government brought a solid material base to collective farms, caused an even more vigorous collective farm movement and moved forward the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. In 1930, a total of 533 million rubles were allocated to finance collective farms (of which 65 million rubles went to the collectivization fund). Benefits to collective farms increased their financial resources by 200 million rubles. Collective farms received 400 million rubles worth of economic property from dispossessed kulaks. Collective farm fields received 37 thousand tractors with a capacity of 400 thousand. Horse power, except for assistance with tractors from state farms. A seed loan of 61 million poods was given to collective farms, and 7 thousand machine-horse bases with 1,300 thousand horses were created to help collective farms.

With such support from the party and government, the middle peasants moved en masse to the collective farms, sweeping away the kulaks on their way.

Following the 2 5-thousandth people, the city councils also mobilized several thousand from among their members to work in the villages. On January 22, a resolution was issued by the People's Commissariat of Agriculture and the Collective Farm Center of the USSR on the mobilization of 8 thousand experienced collective farmers from old collective farms to instruct new collective farms.

The work of the party and government, trade unions, and councils was not in vain.

The spring sowing season of 1930 ended in a brilliant victory on the collectivization front. The final turn of the middle peasants towards socialism was indicated. The numbers speak to this: in 1929, 1 million peasant farms were collectivized, in 1930 - 6 million, that is, a six-fold increase occurred in a year. Collective farms became larger: on October 1, 1929, there were 28 peasant farms per collective farm, and on February 30, 1931 - 58. In 1929, the size of the sown area per collective farm was 72.9 hectares, in 1930 - 428.1 hectares. The sown area as of October 1, 1930 was 2.7 hectares for individual farmers and 5.2 hectares for collective farmers. The percentage of collectivization throughout the USSR was 3.9 on November 1, 1929, and 28.6 on July 10, 1930. On February 10, 1931, a total of 37% of all peasant farms were collectivized under the USSR, of which 74% of all farms in the main grain regions (first group), 40% of all farms in the remaining grain regions (second group) and 40% of all farms in the consuming zone and national republics - 22% of all farms.

It is necessary to note the most remarkable fact of this period: the collective farm movement captured previously backward national regions and remote “outskirts”, where semi-feudal relations had dominated in the recent past and where agriculture was at an extremely low level. technical level. With the help of the fraternal Russian people, the poor and middle peasantry of the national republics turned to the path of socialism. Peasants of the Central Asian republics, Kazakhstan, Transcaucasia, the Far East, Bashkiria, Kalmykia, numerous nationalities of Siberia, not to mention such advanced republics as Ukraine and Belarus, joined the struggle for the collectivization of agriculture.

In such a remote “outskirts” as Western Siberia, the collectivization plan was significantly exceeded. According to the five-year plan, it was assumed that Western Siberia by the end of the five-year plan, 14.5% of peasant farms and 20% of all crops will be collectivized. But already in 1930, 20.3% of farms were collectivized, and collective farm sowing by the end of the five-year plan was 72.5% instead of 20%.

The historic year 1930 ended with a brilliant victory for the collective farm movement. The first decisive stage was passed victoriously.

Citing figures of brilliant victories on the collectivization front, Comrade Stalin

1 Quote based on V. Molotov’s brochure “At a new stage”, pp. 46 - 47.

page 19
at the 16th Party Congress had every reason to declare: “... the fate of agriculture and its main problems will henceforth be determined not by individual peasant farms, but by collective and state farms... The process of eliminating the kulaks as a class is moving forward at full speed. turn the village onto a new path, the path of collectivization, thereby ensuring the successful construction of socialism not only in the city, but also in the countryside" 1 .

The collective farm movement took place in conditions of fierce class struggle. The kulaks, who felt that they were being attacked last days, showed stubborn resistance to collectivization. The kulak did not disdain any means: neither direct terrorist acts against collective farm activists, nor hidden insidious actions designed to compromise, disorganize, and decompose the collective farm movement. Representing an insignificant force in the countryside, the kulaks tried to “press on the middle peasant and through him slow down the collective farm movement.

To disintegrate the collective farms, the kulak tried first of all to undermine their material base. Playing on the petty-proprietary instincts of the middle peasant, the kulak led an agitation among the peasants who decided to join the collective farm for the slaughter of livestock and the sale of agricultural implements. Common kulak slogans at that time were “Everything on the collective farms will be taken away anyway”, “You must go to the collective farm in what your mother gave birth to”; in other places, on the contrary, the kulaks spread rumors that “on the collective farm they will give everything.”

Such kulak agitation brought a lot of harm to the collective farm business. In a number of areas, predatory slaughter of working, dairy and beef cattle began. They slaughtered and sold cows, horses, pigs, and sheep. For example, at the Krasnodar slaughterhouse, numerous cases of slaughter of calving cows were discovered, their number reached 30 - 40% of the total slaughter2. In the Taganrog district, over 3 months, over 26 thousand heads of cattle, 12 thousand heads of young animals and over 16 thousand sheep were sold3. In the Kurgan district (Ural), 2 thousand horses were destroyed in a month and a half. In a number of districts and regions, the number of livestock decreased by 50 - 90%.

In order to combat the kulaks, on February 16, 1930, a resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On measures to combat predatory slaughter of livestock" was published. According to this resolution, those guilty of predatory slaughter of livestock were subject to deprivation of land, confiscation of livestock and agricultural equipment, and imprisonment for up to 3 years, followed by eviction.

However, the kulak's main bet was to blow up the collective farm from within. To do this, the kulak tried by all means to get into the collective farm, pretending to be an ardent supporter of collectivization. As a result of such tactics of the kulak, many collective farms turned out to be clogged with kulak counter-revolutionary elements, who played a leading role in the collective farm. Thus, in the Nagaibansky district (Ural) the agricultural artel “12 Years of October” consisted of eleven kulak farms, and the senior accountant of this collective farm turned out to be a former thorn officer who returned from China in 1927.

In one of the regions of Uzbekistan, during the cleansing of collective farms, 11 Basmachi, 31 dispossessed kulaks, 18 clergy, 8 emir officials, and 13 large merchants were found among the collective farmers.

Having penetrated the collective farm, these “collective farmers” caused enormous harm to the collective farm movement: they poisoned livestock, sowed fields with unusable seeds, set fire to outbuildings, squandered collective farm property, and plundered the harvest. When distributing the harvest on these collective farms, the average collective farmer received much less than he received on his individual farm. This led to the departure of the middle peasants from the collective farms, and in some places to the collapse of the collective farms.

Often the kulaks who got into collective farms also engaged in direct anti-collective farm agitation. Thus, in the village of N. Salda, Tagil district, the former white bandit Yakupov, who shot Red Army soldiers in the old days, got into the collective farm under the guise of a middle-peasant activist. As a result of his anti-collective farm agitation, out of the 74 registered farms, only 25 remained, and even they began to waver 4 .

To disintegrate the collective farm, the kulak resorted to slandering honest people devoted to the collective farm movement. In a number of places, through slander and forgery, the sashes sought expulsion from collective farms, deprivation of voting rights, and sometimes the arrest of active collective farmers, former Red partisans, and demobilized Red Army soldiers.

Such facts were far from isolated. So, in the name of Comrade. Ordzhonikidze, People's Commissar of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate, in March 1930, a statement was received from a collective farmer in the village of Kardzhina, Se-

1 I. Stalin “Questions of Leninism”, pp. 377 - 378 10th ed.

page 20
Vero-Ossetian Autonomous Region. The organizer of the collective farm in 1929, a former Red partisan, was accused of exploiting a farm laborer, expelled from the collective farm, included in the list of kulaks, and his property was subject to confiscation. The slandered activist writes in his statement: “I earnestly ask you, Comrade Sergo, to stop the outrages that are happening in our country during collectivization, when former White Guards, pupils and sycophants of the Kabardian princes (M. Slonov), lead collectivization, settle personal scores, persecute former red partisans, enlist them in the kulaks, distort the guidelines of the party and the Soviet government."

Upon investigation, it turned out that the board of the collective farm consisted of a gang of counter-revolutionaries. The chairman of the board was a former counterintelligence officer of General Denikin. One board member, before joining the collective farm, sold all his livestock, and he brutally beat a farm laborer. There were other similar persons on the collective farm; All of them in their enemy activities were associated with the local kulaks.

In this fierce class struggle, many nameless heroes of collectivization died at the hands of the class enemy. In one Tadpauz district (Turkmenistan), 63 murders of collective farm activists were committed within 3 months.

The kulaks' struggle was supported and led by a number of counter-revolutionary sabotage organizations. At the beginning of 1930, in Ukraine, the OGPU authorities uncovered a counter-revolutionary organization consisting of people who had been active figures in the landowner zemstvo in the past, former cadets, monarchists, and Mensheviks 1 . Having made their way into the governing bodies of Ukraine - the People's Commissariat for Agriculture, Gosplan, Ukrselbank, agricultural cooperation - the saboteurs carried out systematic subversive work against state and collective farms.

The trial of the anti-Soviet “right-Trotskyist bloc” in 1938 revealed that in 1930, disguised enemies of the people, following the instructions of their Trotskyist center, in order to preserve kulak farms, slowed down and disrupted the development of collective farms.

The enemies of the people Zelensky, Fayzulla Khodzhaev, and Ekramov, who were not exposed at that time, were operating in Central Asia. In the Kzylorda and Karmancha regions of complete collectivization (Kazakhstan), the following facts took place: the representative of the district committee for collectivization in one of the villages collected all the plows that were used by the farmers and demanded that they be immediately burned, assuring that plows would immediately be given in return for the plows. The plows were burned, plowing began, but no plows were received. The sowing was disrupted2.

In the Urals, sabotage proceeded through a different channel. There they tried to disrupt the spring sowing campaign of 1930 by untimely delivery and distribution of seed material3.

In the North Caucasus, a member of the counter-revolutionary organization V. Ivanov received assignments from the “right-Trotskyist bloc” to organize rebel detachments in order to ensure a kulak uprising in the North Caucasus 4 .

The united hostile class forces - the kulaks, Bukharin-Trotskyist saboteurs and bourgeois nationalists - hoped that, using the distortions in collective farm construction, they would be able to embitter the peasants against the Soviet regime. In some places they managed to incite peasants into anti-Soviet protests. But all the tricks of the kulak, its brutal resistance, the counter-revolutionary, sabotage actions of the kulak Trotskyist-Bukharin agents were unable to stop the powerful collective farm movement. Having become truly popular, the collective farm movement, with its gigantic pressure, swept away both the fist and its agents from its path.

A reflection of the class struggle that unfolded in the country in connection with collectivization was the distortion of the party line in the practice of the collective farm movement, which took place in a number of regions and districts.

Despite the absolutely clear and precise instructions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 5, 1930, in a number of cases practices were carried out on the ground that were in sharp contradiction with the party resolution. The unshakable principle of the party - the voluntariness of joining a collective farm - was unceremoniously violated. In a number of places, the middle peasants were driven into the collective farm by threats and direct violence.

Instead of preparatory work and explanations of the principles of party policy in the field of collectivization on the ground in a number of regions, they were engaged in artificially inflating the percentage of collectivization and bureaucratic decree.

In the Buguruslan district, for example (Middle Volga), N. Bogolyubovsky village council passed this! decision: “All poor people, farm laborers, should immediately join the collective farm, and

3 Judicial report on the case of the anti-Soviet “right-Trotskyist bloc”, p. 130

4 Ibid., pp. 111 - 112

page 21
also for the middle peasants. Within 2 days, approve the collective farm board and lists of collective farmers; “the poor and farm laborers who did not join the collective farm should be considered opponents of collectivization and Soviet power, and, along with the kulak sections of the population, the question of eviction to the most remote and inconvenient lands should be raised” 1 .

A striking example of decree is the following fact, which took place in the village of Shcherbinovka, Kozlovsky district. There, the commissioner of the rika issued an order: “Within 24 hours of receiving this present, I order everyone to join the collective farm. For failure to comply with this, those guilty, regardless of class affiliation - be it a poor peasant or a middle peasant - will be prosecuted according to the law of the revolutionary tribunal” 2. Another commissioner for collectivization, in the Yalutorovsky district, Tyumen district, speaking at a meeting of peasants, held in his hands two lists: one - to Narym, the other - to the collective farm: “choose where your heart desires.” It is clear that the peasants chose the second list.

The Moscow region did not lag behind Siberia in the excesses. In the leading newspaper “Working Moscow” (organ of the MK VKP(b)) dated February 2, 1930 it was written: “Our Moscow region, which lagged somewhat behind in the pace of collectivization, is currently ahead of a number of other regions. In the implementation of collectivization plans The Moscow region is making very significant progress. At present, the most realistic plan is the complete collectivization of the region" 3.

One of the districts of the Moscow region, Ryazan, set itself the task of collectivizing 75% of peasant farms by the beginning of spring sowing in 1930, while on December 1, 1929, 7% were covered by collective farms4.

In direct connection with the violation of the principle of voluntariness was the violation of the principle of taking into account the diversity of conditions in different regions of the USSR.

Thus, Georgia, contrary to the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the end of collectivization in 1933, already in 1930 was focused on complete collectivization in the shortest possible time. Entire districts and districts were declared areas of complete collectivization5 At the same time, collectivization in a number of places in Transcaucasia was carried out using coercive methods. In South Ossetia, where the collective farm movement was just beginning to develop and by the autumn of 1929 only a few collective farms had been organized, as of March 1, 1930, 92% had already been collectivized6.

In Central Asia, the second Central Asian party meeting at the end of 1929 made a decision in which it stated that the regions of Central Asia “contain within themselves all the data for such a pace of socialization and collectivization that make it possible for the republics of Central Asia not only to catch up, but also to surpass the rest republics of the Union" 7. These guidelines were followed locally. The Angren district, Tashkent district, was collectivized by 85% within 2 weeks. In the Khovat district, Tashkent district, collectivization was carried out with the help of the police. Let us remember that the worst enemies of the people Zelensky, Ikramov and Fayzulla Khodjaev were operating in Central Asia at that time.

A similar practice took place in a number of regions of Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, in the national districts of Siberia (Oirotia) and the North Caucasus.

The resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 5, 1930 recognized the agricultural artel as the main form of the collective farm. Contrary to clear party resolutions, in a number of places they began planting communes with socialization, in addition to the main means of production, poultry, small livestock, residential buildings, household utensils, including handles and pots.

Some areas of the Urals were especially distinguished by this kind of planting of communes. In the Lebyazhsky district, Kurgan district, on February 1, 1930 there were 69 artels and 3 communes. But this was not enough for local leaders. By February 1, 1930, they declared the region a continuous commune, despite the desire and consent of the collective farmers. Collectivization was also carried out in the Shatrovsky district (Tyumen district), where within 2 days 2,500 eaters were “transferred” to the commune charter8.

In the Fallensky district (Nizhny Novgorod region), in a short time, without any preliminary work, without the presence of basic conditions (barnyards, pigsties, etc.), about 20 thousand

1 Central archive of the NKZem of the USSR, collective farm center fund, inventory 241, bundle 5, file 9.

4 "For complete collectivization." Collection of materials on carrying out complete collectivization of the Ryazan district, p. 9.

7 Resolution of the second Central Asian party meeting, p. 11. Tashkent. 1929.

page 22
chickens, geese and ducks, up to 20 thousand small livestock (sheep), etc.

The “left” benders suffered from gigantomania. She was keen on creating giant collective farms. These hobbies often reached the point of absurdity. For example, in the Vyatka region, where farming technology was at an extremely low level, where the main implements of production were plows and roe deer, where the plow was still a rare occurrence, local leaders organized giant collective farms: “Builder of Socialism” on an area of ​​108 thousand hectares, “ New Path" - 119 thousand hectares, "Leninsky Path" - 133 thousand hectares.

In the Cherepovets district, Leningrad region, a giant collective farm was organized, uniting 48 villages. Need I say that these giants soon disintegrated and eventually the collective farms took on normal sizes?

The party's slogan about the elimination of the kulaks as a class was extremely clear and could not raise any doubts. It was formulated as follows: “The liquidation of the kulaks as a class on the basis of complete collectivization.” This meant, firstly, that the liquidation of the kulaks as a class was to be the final moment of complete collectivization in a given area, its organic integral part; this meant, secondly, that the liquidation of the kulaks as a class had to be carried out by the forces and at the request of the poor and middle peasant masses themselves. But here, too, the “left” killers replaced the greatest state act, which should have been accomplished by the forces of the popular movement, with naked bureaucratic administration. Naturally, with such methods: dispossession of kulaks, middle peasants also ended up on the list of kulaks.

In a number of areas, dispossession was carried out in isolation from the systematic implementation of collectivization. It was enough for the leaders of a district or district to declare it an area of ​​complete collectivization, and they immediately began dispossession. In fact, collectivization work was just beginning in these areas.

Thus, in the Rebikha district, Barnaul district (Siberia), dispossession began when only 4% of peasant farms were united in the collective farm. At the same time, local organizations made a decision: “Dekulakization should be carried out at night and in a strictly secret manner” 1 . In the Bolsherechensky district, Biysk district, dispossession began when 25% of peasant farms were united into collective farms 2 .

All these “leftist” bends “represent,” said Comrade Stalin, “some, admittedly unconscious, attempt to revive the traditions of Trotskyism in practice, to revive the Trotskyist attitude towards the middle peasantry” 3 . As a result of the “left” distortions of the party line in collective farm construction, the united front of the working class with the middle peasants began to be undermined, and the kulaks had the opportunity to try to get back on their feet. The activity of openly opportunistic right-wing elements has intensified. They directly helped the kulak get into the collective farms and supported his struggle against the poor and middle peasant masses.

For example, the bureau of the Armizonsky district party committee (Ishim district, Siberia) adopted a resolution: “In order to limit (the entry into collective farms of the wealthy kulak part of the population, to establish the contribution of the latter’s property to the indivisible capital to 75%, and not to consider their entry as unnecessary and harmful”4 .

The representative of the Palachinsky district executive committee (Omsk district) divided the kulaks into “old regime” and “Soviet”. “There are different kulaks,” he said, “the fist of 1917-1918 is one thing, and the Soviet sash, i.e., 1928-1929, is another. We must apply different measures to them and have a different approach” 5 .

In the same Omsk district, the Bolsherechensky district executive committee made a decision: “Every kulak who enters a collective farm is a poor man.” The district executive committee was not slow to implement its decision: 17 kulaks who joined the collective farm were exempted from individual taxation, and one, who managed to pay a tax in the amount of 1,500 rubles, had this tax returned6.

As a result of distortions in the party line in collective farm construction, a situation was created that threatened to derail the cause of collectivization. Only the timely intervention of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and Comrade Stalin personally put an end to the anti-party, anti-Leninist practices of local organizations. On March 2, 1930, Comrade Stalin’s article “Dizziness from Success” was published. March 15, 1930

3 I. Stalin “Questions of Leninism”, p. 419. 10th ed.

These three historical documents revealed the roots of the distortions made on the ground, indicated ways to correct the mistakes made, and acquainted the broadest masses of the middle peasantry with the real Leninist-Stalinist line of the party on the issue of collectivization. Comrade Stalin's articles caused a huge upsurge among the middle peasant masses. Newspapers with articles by Comrade Stalin were read collectively in the village. The middle peasant masses became convinced that local practices, which infringed on the interests of the middle peasants, had nothing in common with the party line.

The fake collective farms collapsed. The ebb of the middle peasants, who were forcibly driven into collective farms, began to ebb. In those places where the “leftist” folders were especially zealous, the percentage of collectivization dropped sharply. For example, in the Moscow region it decreased from 80% in March to 8% in April. In a number of cantons of Tataria, the percentage of collectivization decreased from 75 - 85 in March to 5 - 9 in mid-April, the same picture was observed in the Middle Volga region and in the national regions of the North Caucasus.

This process continued until mid-April 1930, when the normal and natural growth of collective farms began. The middle peasant went voluntarily to the collective farm, there was no need to force him, he just needed help from the state. And this help was provided to him.

“The party has achieved that the distortions of the party line in the collective farm movement have been eliminated.

On this basis the successes of the collective farm movement were consolidated.

On this basis, the ground was created for a new powerful growth of the collective farm movement" 1 .

The spring sowing season of 1930 ended with brilliant victories for collectivization.

Already the mass collective farm movement, and even more so the complete victory of collectivization, overturned all the theories of bourgeois science and reformist ideologists about the “economic sustainability” and “profitability” of small individual peasant farming - “theories” crushed by Lenin and Stalin long before the victory of collectivization in our country.

The mass collective farm movement left no stone unturned from the Menshevik-Trotskyist “theories” about the anti-revolutionary nature of the entire peasantry and from the Bukharin “theories” of the peaceful growth of the kulak into socialism.

The liquidation of the kulaks as a class wrested from the world bourgeois counter-revolution one of its most important positions within the USSR.

Seeing the failure of their anti-Soviet plans in the victorious development of mass collectivization and the successful policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class, all the forces of the world counter-revolution - from the Pope to the social traitors from the Second International - organized a united front against the entire bourgeois press of the world, unprecedented since the end of the first intervention. . During this period, such anti-Soviet campaigns were organized as the campaign against Soviet “dumping”, Kutepovism and Gorgulovism.

The victory of the collective farm movement was a victory not only over the last exploiting class in the USSR, but also a historical victory on the world stage.

It was "...a profound revolutionary revolution...equivalent in its consequences to the revolutionary coup in October 1917" 2 .

For the first time in world history, a government carried out the greatest revolution in complete unity with the broad masses of its people, finally overthrowing the exploiters and eliminating exploitation forever. Unlike revolutions known in history, this revolution “was carried out from above, on the initiative of state power, with direct support from below from the millions of peasants who fought against kulak bondage, for free collective farm life” 3 .

This could only happen because as a result of the October Socialist Revolution, carried out by the working class with the support of the broadest masses of the peasantry, a truly people's government was created, knowing no other goals than the good of the working people, inseparable from its people, being in inextricable unity with them. And only such a government was able, with the full support of the people, to carry out the greatest revolution, putting an end to all exploitation and eliminating the last obstacles to the successful construction of socialism in the USSR.

. Yandex

Page 10 of 42

STALIN AND THE GREAT COLLECTIVE FARM MOVEMENT

A. ANDREEV

Today the peoples of the Soviet Union will celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of Comrade. Stalin. Life and work of comrade. Stalin is extraordinary and multifaceted. Comrade Stalin is a profound theorist who enriches Marxism-Leninism with new content, and at the same time he is a practitioner who does not ignore a single issue from the daily life of the party, the economy and the organization of state work.

Comrade Stalin is a political leader and at the same time he is an organizer of economy, culture, and defense. Comrade Stalin is the author of the Great Soviet Constitution - this true manifesto of communism, but he can also be seen editing textbooks for schools, giving advice to Moscow workers on how best to build houses and streets, he was the initiator and active participant in the development of practical issues of collective farm construction, the work of individual factories and factories .

To embrace all this diverse activity of Comrade. Stalin is impossible in any one article or report, so I want to dwell on only one side of the activities of Comrade. Stalin - his role in organizing and leading the great collective farm movement.

Today, every collective farmer and collective farmer, every village, village and collective farm of our vast country will celebrate the remarkable date of Comrade Stalin’s sixtieth birthday, and at the same time they will take stock of the path traveled. Yes, it cannot be otherwise, because the name of Stalin is associated with a whole radical revolution in the lives of millions of peasants.

Under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, the organizers of the Great October Socialist Revolution, in 1917 the real liberation of the peasants from the landowners and land shortages was carried out. But this was only the beginning, preparation for later, a little later, to carry out a genuine socialist revolution in the countryside.

The October Revolution of 1917 swept away landowners and capitalists in one stroke, broke all centuries-old land relations in the countryside, transferring the lands of landowners, monasteries and state feudal lords to the peasants. But the October Revolution could not even at that moment solve the most fundamental and most difficult issue of the socialist revolution - the transfer of small, fragmented peasant farming to a new socialist path of social economy.

How difficult and complex this task turned out to be can be seen from the fact that our party needed 12 years of enormous preparation to finally approach its final solution.

The greatest wisdom of Comrade Stalin was expressed most clearly in the strategy of leading millions of economically disunited, politically backward peasant masses, in educating and training them, in foreseeing everything that was necessary for a socialist revolution in the countryside, in the consistency and determination with which Comrade Stalin led party to solve this most difficult task of the socialist revolution.

If we follow the individual stages, it will become clear with what foresight of the leader and clarity of Comrade Stalin at each stage he defines the tasks of the Bolshevik Party in relation to the peasantry.

Here are the years 1924 - 26. Lenin is no longer there. The Bolshevik Party and the entire people are rallying around Comrade Stalin, seeing in him a faithful successor to the work of the great Lenin. The new economic policy is in action. Under the leadership of the party, enormous work is underway to restore industry and agriculture. There is a fierce class struggle going on in the village; the kulaks are trying not only to maintain their influence by getting into the councils, but also trying to regain lost positions. The party, guided by Lenin’s slogan, relying on the poor peasants in alliance with the middle peasants, is repelling these kulak attempts.

At a time when our party, having stopped its retreat, is directing the NEP to further strengthen the positions of socialism and limit the capitalist elements, the enemies of the party and the cause of socialism - the despicable Bukharins, Kamenevs and Trotskyists - approach the NEP in a different way, trying to interpret it for further retreat and concessions capitalist elements in town and countryside, i.e., the unleashing of capitalism. During this period, the party has to conduct its work in an extremely responsible and difficult environment. Comrade Stalin clearly shows the party the way forward; he says that the socialist industrialization of the country is the main link from which to begin the turnaround in the socialist construction of the national economy.

Having exposed and completely smashed capitulation and defeatism on the right and left, Comrade Stalin at the 14th Congress set the task for the party: “To transform our country from an agricultural one into an industrial one, capable of producing with its own on our own necessary equipment, - this is the essence, the basis of our general line.”

The solution to this problem was also the key to solving the problems of transferring millions of fragmented peasant farms onto a socialist path. And the party, after its 14th congress, took on this enormous work. Comrade During this period, Stalin repeatedly emphasized that the most important task of the party in the countryside was a strong alliance with the middle peasants. In response to the assertion of the enemies of socialism that our peasantry is not socialist, Comrade Stalin consistently pursues and complements Lenin’s cooperative plan for the peasant economy. This is how he defined the development of agriculture: “Lenin correctly pointed out in his articles on cooperation that the development of agriculture in our country should follow a new path, along the path of involving the majority of peasants in socialist construction through cooperation, along the path of gradually introducing the principles of collectivism into agriculture from the beginning in the field of sales, and then in the field of production of agricultural products.” (I. Stalin. “On the foundations of Leninism”, Questions of Leninism, p. 43).

l926 - 29 years. Recovery period the farm is finished. The Bolshevik Party is successfully leading the work to create a new socialist industry. New factories appear one after another, railways, power plants and other enterprises of the new socialist industry. At the same time, agriculture, although it has exceeded the pre-war level, seriously lags behind the growth of industry, further inevitable fragmentation of peasant farms continues, and the low marketability of agriculture due to its low productivity. There is a serious shortage of bread and agricultural raw materials for industry. Kulak farms curtail their crops, and the grain they produce is delayed and even rotted, but they do not want to hand over to Soviet power. The question arises, where is the way out? It is indicated by Comrade Stalin in his report to the Central Committee at the XV Congress of the Bolshevik Party. “The way out,” answered Comrade Stalin, “is in the transition of small and scattered peasant farms to large and united farms based on social cultivation of the land, in the transition to collective cultivation of the land on the basis of new, higher technology. The solution is to unite small and minute peasant farms gradually, but steadily, not by pressure, but by demonstration and persuasion, into large farms on the basis of public, comradely, collective cultivation of the land, with the use of agricultural machines and tractors, with scientific methods of agricultural intensification. There are no other options."

Comrade Stalin pointed out that there are only two paths for agriculture: either the path of transition of agriculture to large-scale capitalist production, which would lead to the ruin of the peasant masses, the death of the union of workers and peasants, the strengthening of the kulaks and the defeat of socialism, or the path of uniting small peasant farms into collective farms . The bloc of Trotskyists-Zinovievites and Bukharinites actually defended the path of capitalist development of the countryside. The XV Party Congress unanimously adopted, at the proposal of Comrade Stalin, a decision on the comprehensive development of collectivization of agriculture. Having firmly determined this path for itself, our party began serious preparations for the socialist restructuring of agriculture. This preparation, under the leadership of Comrade Stalin, developed in the following areas:

Firstly, strengthening the existing collective farms and disseminating their experience among the peasants. Secondly, the creation of state farms and machine and tractor stations - these support bases for the organization of large-scale socialist agriculture. Thirdly, the intensified deployment of the production of agricultural machinery in order to technical re-equipment agriculture - construction of new tractor and agricultural factories. X. machines. Fourthly, the development of sales and production cooperation, rental points and partnerships for joint cultivation of land, so that in these forms of cooperation the peasants can become accustomed to the social nature of farming. Fifthly, carrying out mass contracting with. X. products, i.e. the establishment of new contractual relations between state organizations and peasants for the production and sale of agricultural products. X. products. Sixth, launching a further offensive against the kulaks, rallying the middle-poor strata of the village and providing them with all possible assistance.

This was basically the plan for preparing the collectivization of peasant farms, which from different sides brought agriculture to one goal - transferring it to the rails of socialist development.

1929 was already the year when the implementation of this plan prepared the village for a massive voluntary transition to collectivization. By this time, our socialist industry had already managed to introduce a significant number of new agricultural machines into agriculture, tractors appeared in the fields, thousands of new state farms had already been organized, i.e. serious base for collectivization, and it began. The movement is opening up in the southern grain regions; it is still hesitant and unorganized, but Comrade. Stalin knows that this is the very thing for which the Bolshevik Party has been preparing the village for 12 years.

The emerging collective farm movement had to define its tasks, give it the necessary scope, and remove obstacles from its path. The Bolshevik Party stands at the head of this world-historical movement towards a new life. tens of millions of poor and middle peasants. Comrade Stalin assesses this movement in his article “The Year of the Great Turning Point”: “What is new and decisive in the current collective farm movement is that peasants join collective farms not in separate groups, as was the case before, but in entire villages, volosts, districts, even districts. What does it mean? This means that the middle peasants went to collective farms. This is the basis of that radical change in the development of agriculture, which constitutes the most important achievement of Soviet power...”

On January 5, 1930, at the proposal of Comrade Stalin, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a historic decision “On the pace of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction.”

The Soviet government switched to a policy of liquidation and destruction of the kulaks as a class, the laws on renting land and hiring labor were repealed, and the ban on dispossession was lifted. It was allowed for peasants to confiscate cattle, cars and other equipment from the kulaks in favor of the collective farm.

In connection with these decisions of the government and the party, complete collectivization receives new strength. It simultaneously sweeps away the last class of exploiters - the kulaks, freeing the peasants forever from kulak bondage.

It was a deep socialist revolution in the countryside, in which the entire peasantry participated, which was organized by the Soviet government and the party from above.

Enemies of all stripes realized that this was the last and decisive battle, they sensed that the last ground under their feet was disappearing, that they were losing their last positions and the slightest opportunity for the restoration of capitalism. That is why everything hostile and oppositional is uniting against the party, which is leading the collectivization of the countryside to victory, against the collective farms. The Bukharinites throw off their last mask, openly stand in the camp of the enemies, the result is a continuous front of enemies of socialism, starting from the imperialist cliques, the White Guards, factory owners, landowners, kulaks, Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, Trotskyists, Bukharinites and other evil spirits. They all went into a frenzy against the collective farms. All of them are intertwined in a bloody and dirty conspiracy against the people, breaking down the last obstacles and partitions on the path to a new life.

But where can they fight with the powerful party of Lenin-Stalin, with millions of peasants who do not want to continue living in the old way and have realized their strength to build a new life! Therefore, all sorts of enemy actions against collective farms looked rather pitiful and were crushed - nothing could stop the victorious development of the complete collectivization of the countryside.

The old system of the countryside was being replaced by a new one, but during this great socialist restructuring, dangerous shortcomings in the management of collectivization began to emerge on the ground. Many local party and Soviet workers became carried away by the percentages of collectivization and began to replace methods of persuasion with a kind of bureaucratic decree for the collectivization of peasant farms. Instead of making the artel the main form of the collective farm, as the Central Committee of the Party indicated in its decisions, such headless workers went straight to organizing communes, i.e., jumping straight to highest form collective farm system, against the will of the peasants, socializing, along with the tools of production, draft animals, also all small livestock, poultry, and household equipment. These serious mistakes in collectivization in a number of areas could not but cause discontent among the peasants. The enemies of the collective farms cleverly exploited these dangerous shortcomings of our workers, often themselves, with provocative purposes, acting as instigators of such excesses.

Comrade Stalin, on instructions from the Party Central Committee, first came out with the article “Dizziness from Success,” and then with the article “Answer to Comrade Collective Farmers.” In them, he attacked the excesses with all his passion. He said: “What can be in common between this “policy” of non-commissioned officer Prishibeev and the policy of the party, based on voluntariness and taking into account local characteristics in the matter of collective farm construction? It is clear that there is and cannot be anything in common between them.

Who needs these distortions, this bureaucratic decree of the collective farm movement, these unworthy threats towards the peasants? Nobody but our enemies!

What can they lead to, these curvatures? To strengthen our enemies and to debunk the ideas of the collective farm movement.

And further he says in the article “Answer to Comrade Collective Farmers”: “The danger here is that they, these mistakes, lead us directly to the dethronement of the collective farm movement, to discord with the middle peasants, to the disorganization of the poor, to the confusion of our ranks, to the weakening of our entire socialist construction, to the restoration of the kulaks. In short, these mistakes tend to push us from the path of strengthening the alliance with the main masses of the peasantry, from the path of strengthening the proletarian dictatorship, to the path of breaking with these masses, to the path of undermining the proletarian dictatorship.”

At the same time, he gave a clear definition of our tasks in collective farm construction: “The main link in the collective farm movement, its predominant form at the moment, which we must now seize on, is the agricultural artel.”

“This means that now we must steer a course not towards the commune, but towards the agricultural artel, as the main form of collective farm construction, that we must not allow us to skip over the agricultural artel to the commune, which cannot be replaced mass movement peasants to collective farms by “decreeing” collective farms, “playing collective farms”.

These speeches of the greatest political importance by Comrade. Stalin played a decisive role in the correction on the ground dangerous deficiencies in the leadership of collectivization and major mistakes in the peasant question, which boiled down to an incorrect approach to the middle peasants and a violation of the Leninist principle of voluntariness in organizing collective farms.

After the above-mentioned speeches by Comrade Stalin and the decisions of the Central Committee of the Party, party organizations quickly corrected the excesses and distortions of party policy that had occurred in collective farm construction, and the collective farm movement went further up the mountain, consolidating itself and gaining new momentum and strength.

Years 1932 - 1934. Collective farms finally won. The collective farm system in the countryside has become a fact; the class struggle in the countryside is taking on other, even more acute forms. The enemies of collective farms are radically changing their tactics. Being defeated and feeling the impossibility of further conducting an open struggle against the collective farms, they, masquerading as supporters of the collective farms, proceed to hidden subversive work. In mortal hatred of the collective farm system, they do not hesitate to use the most savage methods of wrecking work just to undermine the collective farms. They infect collective farm livestock, rot collective farm grain and feed, and kill collective farm activists from around the corner. In a word, there are no means that the enemies of collectivization, who have infiltrated collective farms, land authorities, scientific institutes and other organizations, would not use in the fight against collective farms.

Later, in connection with the exposure of the right-wing Trotskyist conspiratorial spy centers and their vile work, it became quite clear that the sabotage work on collective farms was by no means of a local nature, but was the result of a big plan of the enemies of the people - to disrupt collective farm construction at all costs, organize famine in the country through sabotage in agriculture and provoke discontent among the peasantry. But all these corrupt spy rumps were deeply mistaken; it was not so easy to undermine the already strong collective farms, and the people threw their enemies out of their way.

On the other hand, in connection with the complete victory of the collective farms, a mood of complacency began to prevail among some party and Soviet workers, a loss of vigilance regarding enemy work, and a desire to rest on their laurels. Dangerous elements of gravity in the management of collective farms began to appear.

Comrade Stalin resolutely condemned such sentiments as un-Bolshevik. This is how he defined the issues of collective farm management during this period in his speech at the plenum of the Party Central Committee in 1933 on the results of the first five-year plan: “Now the question is no longer about the accelerated pace of collectivization, and especially not about whether there will be collective farms or not,” this issue has already been resolved positively. Collective farms have been consolidated, and the path to the old, individual farm is completely closed. Now the task is to strengthen the collective farms organizationally, drive out sabotage elements from there, select real, proven Bolshevik personnel for the collective farms, and make the collective farms truly Bolshevik.

This is the main thing now.”

And in his speech at the same plenum of the Central Committee on the issue “On work in the countryside,” he said: “The transition to collective farming, as the predominant form of economy, does not reduce, but increases our concerns about agriculture, does not reduce, but increases the leadership role of communists in the development of agriculture. Gravity flow is now more dangerous than ever for the development of agriculture. Gravity flow can now ruin the whole thing.”

Comrade Stalin further warned that the enemies of collectivization were continuing their work. “In order to discern such a cunning enemy and not succumb to demagoguery, one must have revolutionary vigilance, one must have the ability to tear off the mask from the enemy and show the collective farmers his real, counter-revolutionary face.”

In order to consolidate these provisions organizationally, to help collective farms in strengthening them and to put an end to kulak sabotage, at the suggestion of Comrade Stalin, the Party Central Committee decided to organize political departments under the MTS and send 17 thousand party workers to the villages. These measures played a huge role in the further strengthening of collective farms.

In 1933, at the suggestion of Comrade Stalin, the first congress of collective farmers was convened, at which in his speech, summing up the collective farm movement, he defined its upcoming tasks. He said: “It would be wrong to think that we should stop at this first step, at this first achievement. No, comrades, we cannot stop at this achievement. In order to move on and finally strengthen the collective farms, we must take a second step, we must achieve a new achievement. What is this second step? It consists in raising collective farmers - both former poor peasants and former middle peasants - even higher. It is to make all collective farmers prosperous. Yes, comrades, wealthy."

“In order for collective farmers to become prosperous, this now requires only one thing - to work honestly on the collective farm, to use tractors and machines correctly, to use draft animals correctly, to cultivate the land correctly, to take care of collective farm property.”

These provisions became the basis for further practical work parties in collective farm construction.

In all subsequent years, Comrade Stalin, with the greatest care, continues to tirelessly lead the work of further strengthening the collective farms.

The strengthened and victorious collective farm movement now requires the solution of a number of internal organizational issues.

In 1935, the second congress of collective farmers convened. The congress develops a model charter for the agricultural artel. Comrade Stalin takes an active part in this work. The charter actually contains the entire policy and practice of the party in organizing socialist agriculture. Collective farmers rightly call this charter the Stalinist law of collective farm life. The model charter also stipulates the transfer of all land for perpetual use to collective farms with the prohibition of its transfer, purchase, sale or lease.

During these years, the collective farm system was already unshakable. Collective farms are armed with first-class equipment. New personnel have grown up on collective and state farms. Collective farmers have already fully developed a taste for public farming. The victories of large-scale collective farm farming are being realized one after another. The grain problem has been solved. The gross grain harvest in 1937 amounted to 7,350 million poods, that is, 2,450 million poods higher than the pre-war level and 2,860 million poods higher than 1928. Comrade Stalin set new tasks - to achieve a further increase in grain production, for which he would launch a struggle along the entire front to increase productivity: by introducing crop rotation, increasing the use of fertilizers in agriculture, and taking measures to combat drought. This is the direction it goes further work parties and collective farms. Comrade At the 17th Party Congress, Stalin noted the backwardness of livestock farming as another serious shortcoming and called on the party to solve this problem as well.

As at all previous stages, Comrade Stalin, defining the tasks and direction of collective farm construction, directly involved himself in literally all the specific issues of the progress of construction and the operation of factories for the production of tractors and agriculture. machines and fertilizers, the work of MTS and state farms, organizational issues on collective farms, the selection of people for agriculture and many other issues, and in all this, first of all, Comrade Stalin’s greatest paternal concern for the interests of the collective farm is reflected. As soon as this year the Central Committee of the Party began to receive signals about the facts of squandering public lands of collective farms, Comrade Stalin was the first to demand a special discussion at the plenum of the Central Committee of this issue and at this plenum sharply criticized our leaders of local party and Soviet organizations for their careless opportunistic attitude towards anti-collective farm the practice of squandering public lands on collective farms and demanded its immediate elimination.

Following this, Comrade Stalin raises the question of the need for the all-round development of collective farm livestock raising, the organization of new farms on collective farms in order to move the social economy forward. In accordance with this, the Government and the Party adopted a law on measures for the development of livestock farming on collective farms. There is no doubt that the collective farms will successfully solve this problem in the near future.

One can endlessly cite similar examples of comrade’s warm concern. Stalin about ensuring further victories of our collective farms.

Such is Comrade Stalin as the inspirer, organizer and leader of the great collective farm movement.

Without exaggerating at all, we can directly say that it was the wise leadership of Comrade Stalin that made it possible for our Bolshevik party to achieve comparatively short time to ensure the greatest historical victories of socialism in agriculture.

The Bolshevik Party and the multimillion-dollar collective farm peasantry today, in connection with Comrade Stalin’s sixtieth birthday, will sum up the glorious results of the work done, as a result of which the most complex and difficult task of the socialist revolution has been finally solved - the transfer of small, backward individual peasant farming to the rails of a large socialist socialist economy. Socialist revolutions in other countries will long draw experience from this remarkable work to solve the problem of socialist reorganization of agriculture in their own countries.

The largest public agriculture has been created, equipped with hundreds of thousands of tractors and first-class machines. Working conditions in agriculture have changed radically; now there is no longer exhausting labor from dawn to dusk, it has been made easier and largely replaced by machines.

All exploiting classes that sat on the necks of the peasantry were eliminated. The exploitation of man by man is ended forever, and the collective farm peasantry itself has become a new class, freed from oppression and bondage, the master of its own life.

Comrade Stalin’s slogan about the prosperous life of collective farmers has been realized, the prosperous life of collective farmers has become a fact. Hunger and extinction of the peasants, poverty and need have haunted the village for centuries - now they are finished forever.

The antithesis between city and countryside that has existed for centuries is being eliminated. City and countryside, worker and peasant, live the same political, material and cultural life in the Soviet Union.

Numerous new personnel have been created in socialist agriculture and collective farms, and the collective farm village now has its own numerous intelligentsia.

Along with this, we now have all the prerequisites for a giant leap forward towards an unprecedented increase in labor productivity in agriculture, as evidenced by the successes achieved by the leaders of agriculture. Consequently, all conditions have been created for the further flourishing of an even happier life for the collective farm peasantry.

That is why our multimillion-strong collective farm peasantry, like the entire Soviet people, today will once again thank Comrade from the bottom of their hearts. Stalin - the creator of human happiness, the inspirer and organizer of the new collective farm life and wishes him long years of health and successful work to build a communist society.

Ministry of Education of the Republic of Bashkortostan

Education Department of the Administration

Head: additional teacher

education in local history

With. Bolsheustikinskoe -2009

"Roads of the Fatherland"

Work theme:“History of the collective farm movement using the example of SPK Leninsky”

I've done the work:, 10th grade student, student of the local history association at the Municipal Educational Institution Secondary School in the village of Nizhneye Bobino

Supervisor:, teacher of additional education in local history

1. Introduction

2. The history of the Lenin collective farm…………………………..7

3. Contribution of the economy to the granaries of the Motherland……………………………………15

4. Share in the district Agroindustry……………………………………………………….16

5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………...17

6. References

7. Applications

Introduction

In those days, Lenin was the leader and teacher of the working people of the whole world, the creator of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the founder of the Soviet state, the greatest scientist and a simple and warm-hearted person. It was a great honor to have such a name. Only advanced farms were given the name of Lenin, and of course the state helped such collective farms in every possible way. In every region of the Republic of Bashkortostan and throughout Russia, farms with this name were organized.

For residents of the villages of Maloustikinskoye and Nizhneye Bobino, the Lenin collective farm has always been a city-forming enterprise. The whole life of a collective farmer was closely connected with the farm. Plowing the garden, removing hay from the hayfield, bringing in straw. The collective farm provides animals for fattening, small piglets and calves, and feed at a low price.

The life of the school, SDK, and kindergartens also depends on the material assistance of the Leninsky SEC.

Goal of the work:

Study the history of the collective farm movement in our country. Using materials about the emergence of the Lenin collective farm (SPK Leninsky);

Subject of study:

The subject of the research was historical documents and stories of old-timers about the emergence of a collective farm in the villages of Maloustikinskoye and Nizhneye Bobino.

Object of study:

- archival records about the emergence of the commune, memories of old-timers;

Tasks:

1. Analysis of archival documents.

2. Find people who remember the times when the collective farm began, or who have heard the stories of others.

3. Determine the continuity of the economy, regardless of the change of names.

Research methods:

Excursions around the village, around farm objects, study of museum materials, newspaper publications, conversations with old-timers, photographs of historical objects.

Analysis of the documents used

The predominant information value for the study were documents and materials from central and local archives, current office documentation, correspondence of central, regional and local authorities, periodicals of the Orenburg Department of the IRGO and the Ural Society of Natural History Lovers; Published geographical and historical non-fiction, reference materials and publications. The published works (1964), (1966; 1971; 1990), (1959; 1971; 1990), (1973), (1993; 1994), (2001; 2002; 2004), (2001) were important in terms of relating to the problem under study.

Various organizational and administrative documents are of significant information value - minutes of meetings, district party committees, as well as reports and acts, reports of economic workers at various levels. This documentation provides information on the conduct of operations to expel “kulaks” from a particular area, and on the number of deported households. Various reference materials and publications were used: “Materials on the history of the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic”, Ural Historical Encyclopedia, etc. “Materials on the history of the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic” - Volume IV - part two.

Volume IV of the collection “Materials on the history of the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic” is devoted to the economy, social relations in Bashkiria and the management of the Orenburg region in the third quarter of the 18th century. The collection consists of two inextricably linked parts. The first part contains the official material of serf offices for 1751-1775. Its documents cover the same chronological period as the documents of the first part. It is much less homogeneous in composition, since it includes a variety of office material from central and local institutions.

The absence of many generalized data, individual facts, and the inconsistency of some information made it necessary to use additional material. We also used materials from periodicals. The most significant information about the collective farm peasantry was extracted from the newspapers “Red Bashkiria”, “Sovetskaya Bashkiria”, “Pravda” over the years. The articles of a number of authors contain useful information on such issues as the organization of labor on collective farms, the labor activity of the peasantry, the state of cultural and socio-political life of the village, the production of grain, livestock products, etc. Of course, the materials of the periodical press had an ideological and propaganda overtones, therefore they should be treated with some caution, and digital data should be checked and compared.

2. The history of the Lenin collective farm

The history of the Lenin collective farm, like the history of any collective farm, began with the shot of the legendary cruiser AURORA. Since the establishment of Soviet power, great transformations began in the village. At the beginning, the new life entered the villages timidly and uncertainly, but every year it entered the villages more and more persistently. Its first sprout on our collective farm was a commune called “NOVIY SVET”, formed in 1920. It included poor peasant farms. Among the first communards were:

Grigory Popkov

Ivan Bersenev

Efim Maksimov

Ivan Chubarov

Ivan Shubin

Kuzma Tomilov

Grigory Tomilov

Matvey Tomilov

Alexey Redkin

Dmitry Vatolin

Trofim Kryuchkov

Peter Kiselev

Grigory Petrov

Petr Koryakov

The chairman of the commune was Ivan Fedorovich Chubarov. “NEW WORLD” was located near the Nizhnee Bobinskaya MTF. The communards had at their disposal a seeder, a mower, and several reapers. In 1921, the commune began to be called a partnership for joint cultivation of land (TOZ).

The kulaks were hostile to the communards - these first pioneers of the collective farm system, maybe for this or for another reason, but in 1921 the communards began to live in the so-called Vatolinsky village, which was located on the border of the lands between Nizhnee Bobino and Novo-Muslyumovo. There were about 10 courtyards in the village. TOZ's life was very difficult and difficult.

For example, sowing lasted at least a month. They sowed mainly by hand; there were few horse-drawn seeders. They plowed and harrowed on horses. It was possible to plow no more than 70 acres per day. Almost everything was done by hand and during the harvest period. Horse-drawn reapers and threshers, that's all the equipment. The harvesting process was as follows: they knitted sheaves and put them in stacks. They threshed bread mainly in winter. The collective farm did not emerge from the first commune, but its significance is great.

The poor felt the great strength hidden in collective farming and learned from experience that it is easier to endure difficulties, hardships, and adversity together.

A new important period began in the formation of the collective farm in 1929, although a year before that a partnership for joint cultivation of the land called “Iskra” arose. It included 9 households, these are farms:

Flegonta Chubarova

Evdokia Myachina

Alexandra Krasheninnikova

Vasily Panachev

Alexandra Panacheva

Anna Panacheva

Ivan Chizhikova

Petra Chizhikova

Pyotr Egorovich Chizhikov was elected chairman. Iskra had about 12 hectares of arable land, 5 plows, a thresher and a reaper.

In 1929, complete collectivization began. On November 20, the Partizan collective farm was formed; it included:

Bolsheustikinskoye

Maloustikinskoe

Upper, Lower Bobino

Muslyumovo

Baryshevka

In 1932, the collective farm named after Kirov separated from Partizan, which included Verkhnee and Nizhneye Bobino and Baryshevka. In 1941, the collective farm named after “Kirov” was divided into three collective farms: “Zarya” (Baryshevka), named after. Kirov (V. Bobino), named after. Stalin (N. Bobino). In 1943, the Partizan collective farm also split into three collective farms: “Red Plowman”, “Victory” and “Partizan”. All of them were in the village of Maloustikinskoye. In 1950, the collective farms "Red Plowman", "Pobeda" and "Partizan" merged into one collective farm "Partizan", and the collective farms "Zarya", named after. Kirov, im. Stalin to the collective farm named after. Stalin.

In 1951, the Partizan collective farm merged with the collective farm named after. Varashilov (village Azikeevo) and began to be called the collective farm named after Varashilov. In 1956, this collective farm was divided into two, named after Varashilov and named after Lenin. In those days, Lenin was the leader and teacher of the working people of the whole world, the creator of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the founder of the Soviet state, the greatest scientist and a simple and warm-hearted person. It was a great honor to have such a name. Only advanced farms were given the name of Lenin, and of course the state helped such collective farms in every possible way. In every region of the Republic of Bashkortostan and throughout Russia, farms with this name were organized.

In 1959, the collective farms named after Lenin and named after Stalin merged into one collective farm named after LENIN. Since then, neither the boundaries nor the names of the collective farms have changed.

In the establishment of Soviet power on the territory of the collective farm and collectivization, the great role and merit of Ekaterina Andreevna Vatolina. She was the most active participant in dispossession; she ignited people with her ardent faith in a new life. “Women, join the collective farm, you won’t go wrong, life will be such that you will forget about the grips”... such words could often be heard from her during the period of the creation of the collective farm. As you know, the hatred and resentment of the kulaks fell on the most active ones. And it is no coincidence that when Ekaterina Andreevna was the chairman of the village council, a kulak sawn-off shotgun shot at her. They saved Ekaterina Andreevna - instinct, bushes growing near the windows of the village council. They prevented the enemy from aiming more accurately.

In 1931, when the first chairman of the Partizan collective farm, Grigory Tomilov, was transferred to work in Ufa, Ekaterina Andreevna was elected in his place. She traveled to Moscow several times and saw Stalin. Currently, a photograph of a group of collective farmers (including our fellow countrywoman) is kept in the collective farm party committee.

Since complete collectivization, life in the village has been changing at a rapid pace. In the early 30s, the first tractors, cars, threshers and other equipment appeared. Livestock farms emerged. In 1933, collective farmers saw the Kommunar combine for the first time, and Alexander Kuzmich Tomilov began working on it.

True, during its first harvest, the combine was only able to harvest 9 hectares of grain. The fact is that he had a bent shaft of the main boat. Nobody knew how to repair it. The shaft was replaced only the following year, and the combine started working. The way of life of people also changed. In 1930, nurseries were organized and a film installation appeared. And in 1939, when the Bolsheustiikskaya hydroelectric power station generated its first current, the first light bulbs were lit. However, not every house had light. There were very few light bulbs in those years. And yet life was very, very difficult.

There was little technology, and many jobs had to be done manually. Pay depended entirely on the weather. IN favorable years When a good harvest grew, there was something to earn for workdays, and if the year was not successful, collective farmers were practically left without pay. For example, in 1934, 1 kg of grain was given out for the first workday, then, until 1937, workdays were not paid. The years 1937 and 1938 were successful, and then for two years in a row there was nothing to receive.

Collective farmers suffered especially a lot of grief during the Great Patriotic War. The entire burden of collective farm work fell on the shoulders of women and teenagers.

400 people left three collective farm villages for the front, only 190 returned, but the people survived. Despite the enormous difficulties and hardships, the collective farm provided the front with bread, meat, and wool. Many worked during the terrible years of war with full dedication - these are:

and many others.

The post-war period was characterized by rapid growth and strengthening of the collective farm economy. Every year more and more tractors, combines, trailed equipment, and agricultural implements appeared. To replace dilapidated wooden livestock premises and other production facilities, stone ones came. Manual labor gradually replaced by mechanization. However, production and economic indicators were not high.

In the early 30s, the largest farm of the collective farm, Askarovskaya, was built (it was like an isolation ward where sick and weak animals were taken). On this farm there were about 400 heads of cattle, of which 120 were cows, many of the cows were old. There was no mechanization of any kind. Livestock farmers themselves prepared food for the winter. Moreover, there were no cattlemen at that time. The entire burden of work fell on the shoulders of the milkmaids. The rooms were filled with impenetrable dirt. Of the two buildings, one was dilapidated, the other was under construction. Practically, even simple zootechnical records were not kept; breeding work was very poorly organized. Production indicators were also low. There was practically no intensive feeding of livestock. Only in 1959, about 40 animals were put on the farm for feeding.

In the mid-50s, automatic drinkers appeared in the newly built building. Automatic milking was introduced on the farm in the early 60s. Manure removal appeared around 1965. Among those who long years worked at Askarovskaya MTF:

Evdokia Semyonovna Redkina

Evdokia Arkadyevna Redkina

Antonina Mikhailovna Redkina

Valentina Petrovna Tomilova

Tatyana Petrovna Tsypysheva

Maria Andreevna Tomilova

Anastasia Mikhailovna Tomilova

Andrey Ivanovich Novoselov, who worked as a manager for many years, made a significant contribution to the development of livestock farming at the Askarovskaya MTF.

New important stage in the development of the collective farm began after the historic March (1965) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee. As is known, this Plenum marked the beginning of a radical transformation of agriculture. The influx of equipment into collective farms has increased, mineral fertilizers. Purchase prices have been revised. The agricultural development program developed by the party and the government has been successfully implemented and continues to be implemented. This is clearly seen in the example of our collective farm. The delivery of livestock products to the state and the number of livestock on farms increased rapidly. As the collective farm economy strengthened, the welfare of collective farmers also increased.

The fact that the collective farm is firmly on its feet is quite convincingly indicated by the fact that in 1974 the farm for the successes achieved in the socialist competition of collective farms Russian Federation, was awarded the Red Banner of the Ministry of Agriculture of the RSFSR.

January 1976. A regional party conference took place in Ufa. Among the delegates elected to the XXV Congress of the CPSU was the pig farmer of our collective farm, Valentina Ivanovna Tashkinova. First of all, this event is a recognition of the merits of the entire collective farm team. Being elected as a delegate to the party congress is a high assessment by the communists of Bashkiria of the persistent work of collective farm workers.

Along with the development of the collective farm, great changes also occurred in everyday life. In the very recent past, 15-20 years ago, the situation in the houses of collective farmers was simple. They were dominated homemade benches, bulky chests of drawers and cabinets, flooring. Rarely did a home have a radio, and the most common form of transport was a bicycle. And not every family had the opportunity to buy everything.

By the beginning of 1978 there was:

On farms – 2153 cattle

Including cows – 630

Pigs - 3130

There are 316 yards in three settlements of the collective farm

Population: 828 people

Including 603 collective farmers, of which 379 are able-bodied.

For the successes achieved in the republican socialist competition to increase production and procurement of livestock products, increase productivity and increase the number of livestock, the Lenin collective farm of the Mechetlinsky district for 5 months of 1978 was awarded the challenge Red Banner of the Bashkir Regional Committee of the CPSU of the Council of Ministers of the BASSR, the regional Council of Trade Unions and the regional committee of the Komsomol .

A memorial plaque bearing the name of the Lenin collective farm was opened in 1981.

At the beginning of the formation of the collective farm named after Lenin, he was its leader and chairman.

Since 1967, he has been the permanent manager of the farm. 33 years of work experience at the head of the collective farm speaks of the high trust and respect of collective farmers.

February, 2000. At the reporting and re-election meeting he was elected chairman of the collective farm.

The collective farm named after Lenin, now SPK Leninsky, one of the economically strong farms in the northeast of the republic, despite the economic difficulties of the last decade, strives to work profitably, preserve and increase labor achievements and traditions.

2001 – a diploma from the Government of the Republic of Bashkortostan was awarded to the SPK named after. Lenin's prize for stable production of agricultural products is a car.

2002 – III degree diploma from the government of the Republic of Bashkortostan for high performance in the field of livestock farming. Prize - Niva car

2003 – diploma from the government of the Republic of Bashkortostan for high performance in the development of livestock farming. Prize - car "Moskvich"

2004 – Letter of thanks President of the Republic of Bashkortostan. Cash bonus.

Over its fifty-year history, the collective farm has received many honorary diplomas, certificates, and awards. .

3. Contribution of the economy to the granaries of the Motherland

For 50 years, the workers of the fields and farms of the collective farm named after Lenin - SPK "Leninsky" produced:

Grain – 390 thousand tons – 6500 wagons;

Potatoes – 17 thousand tons – 300 wagons;

Milk – 75 thousand tons – 1250 wagons;

Meat – 23 thousand tons – 380 wagons;

Wool – 150 tons – 3 wagons.

4. Share in the regional Agroprom

The place occupied by the Leninsky agricultural production complex in the agro-industrial complex of the region is eloquently evidenced by the indicators of ten months of the current year. In the total volume of agricultural enterprises in the region, the share of SPK "Leninsky" is:

Cattle population – 39%;

Including the number of cows - 32%;

Pig population – 68%;

Grain production – 10%;

Meat production – 57%;

Milk production – 47%;

Milk yield from a cow amounted to 3144 kilograms from January to October (the average for the region was 2404 kilograms).

Conclusion

SEC "Leninsky" in the Mechetlinsky district is a farm that, despite the economic difficulties of the last decade, not only remained afloat, but, while operating profitably, preserves and increases labor achievements and traditions.

“Leninists”, unlike others, are not chasing a new fashion for “reforming” the economy. The way they worked in the early 70s on self-support is how they work.

The title of honorary collective farmer was established on the collective farm. Every year, the holder of this title is given 2 centners of grain, 8 cubic meters of firewood free of charge, a garden is plowed, and he rides a collective farm bus for free. There are also the titles “Honored Collective Farmer”, and in this case a number of benefits are provided.

Since 1996, the Book of Labor Glory has been maintained, in which the best in their profession are entered. Every year, photographic portraits of 10 collective farmers who have achieved the highest results in their work are posted on the board of advanced workers.

Thanks to the existence of the Leninsky SEC, they retain their identity settlements Nizhneye Bobino and Maloustikinskoe, there are schools and kindergartens. There are jobs in the Leninsky agricultural production complex, so young people do not leave the villages. And those villages where collective farms have fallen into disrepair, secondary schools are being closed and are being converted into incomplete or even primary schools, for example, villages such as Kurgat and Ishalino.

Bibliography:

1. Memoirs of Pyotr Egorovich Chizhikov, born in 1898, recorded in 1977.

2. Memoirs of Nikolai Stepanovich Chebykin, born in 1925, recorded in 1988.

3. Memoirs of Mikhail Ivanovich Tomilov, born in 1929, recorded in 1989.

4. Archival historical information.

5. Catalog "Agro-industrial complex of the Republic of Bashkortostan", house", Bashkir press, 2006

6. Khatmullina paints labor, 2000

Annex 1

C A R T O C H A

1. Collective farm, state farm, factory them. Lenin

2. Identification code 105154

3. 452556 postcode

4. District Mechetlinsky

5. p/o Maloustikinskoe

6. d., p. rp., kp, dp, st-tsa, x With. Maloustikinskoye, D. N. Bobino,

D. V. Bobino

7. Year of organization (actually) 1956

8. Resolution (order) of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR on

organization – date and number

9. Order of the Ministry - date and number

organized on the basis (collective farm, destrengthened state farm or part

lands, etc., their name) Association for them. Lenin and

them. Stalin

10. Land area 11060 ha

including arable land 7616 ha

11. Main production direction livestock and

field farming

12. Date and number of the order of the Ministry on establishing the production direction

13. Additional production direction

in crop production

in livestock farming

14. Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on awards -

15. Subordination (when and to whom – date and order number)

Official seal of enterprises,

organizations, institutions

Signature (chairman,

director, chief)

Appendix 2

Home front workers

Appendix 3

Children working during the war

Appendix 4

1965 Farm workers Askarovka

Appendix 5

Chairman of the Partizan collective farm in 1931. She traveled to Moscow several times and saw Stalin.

(3rd row from the second right)

Application

Appendix 5

Appendix 6

Board of the collective farm named after Lenin

Projects on the topic:

Leninsk

Memos Patriotism Pedagogy Pedagogical programs Pension provision Pension fund Championship Resettlement Planning Scheduled inspections Event plans Development plans Social development plans Plans Agenda Price increases Preparation for entrance exams Preparation Divisions Contract construction Fire safety Fire protection Buying a business Police Full education Regulations Helping children Settlements Supply of equipment Supplies Resolutions Consumer market Explanatory notes Internal labor regulations Rules of use Rules for the provision of services Legal acts Legal norms Offenses Practice Proposals Instructions Entrepreneurial activity Entrepreneurship Enterprises Presentations Press releases Privatization of municipal property