How Soviet collective farms and state farms were arranged. Collective farms, state farms, cooperative plan in the USSR who ruled agriculture

Signs of pregnancy after implantation of the embryo

The text of the work is placed without images and formulas.
Full version Works available in the "Work Files" tab in PDF format

Introduction

The renewal processes occurring in our society identified a number of problems, among which the special place is searching for the value basics of the organization of the life of the school, understanding their essence and meaning in modern education. In a new way, the problem of preserving cultural values \u200b\u200bsounded. Therefore, in the last decade, interest in the history of the native land is increasing, this is reflected in the organization of various types of local history educational activities, including in research local history work. The stated topic is relevant in the context of the strategic goals and objectives facing the formation as a whole modern stage, Including at the stage of introducing federal state educational standards of secondary general education. Work on the development of creative, student research abilities provides for a constant search, so the realization of the conceived is an integral part of the local lore direction of the educational work of the school.

Our school has a local history account, where for many years of search work is a fairly large material on the history of our edge. A special place here is the story of a collective farm, because the School of Rural, and most of the graduates worked and still working in agriculture, but all the materials we have, not systematized, the chronicles of the history of our farm located in the village of Orekhovno, as such . It was this fact that determined the choice of the topic of work: "The history of the collective farms of the Orekhovsky district". therefore purpose Research work has become creation of the chronicles of collective farms of the Orekhovsky district. Object research are collective farms, including kolkhoz "Soviet Russia".Subject of research - the process of formation and reorganization of collective farms.

The object and purpose of research makes it possible to formulate the following hypothesis: "The process of collectivization and consolidation of collective farms was reflected in the history of our region."

For the implementation of the goal and confirmation of the hypothesis are the following tasks:

Determine the meaning of the concepts of "collectivization", "collective farm", "enlarging collective farms";

Explore, analyze and systematize the existing in the archives, museums, the local history office of the school documentation on the history of the formation of collective farms;

Install in which year and where the first collective farms appeared, establish the names of collective farms;

Install, in which year the collective farm "Soviet Russia";

Trace the process of enlaring collective farms;

Establish the reasons for infusion in the Kolkhoz "Soviet Russia" of other collective farms.

Turning to the problem of studying the history of the emergence and reorganization of collective farms in the territory of the Orekhovsky district, we found that the literature was published, where it was described in this process as a whole, quite a lot. As for the description of the collectivization process, only two sources were found: the book of Leonid Pavlovich Gracheva "Road from Volkhov" and the story of Vednei Zabnina (Vasily Yakovlevich Egorova) "Fatherland". Leonid Pavlovich Grachev in 1928 came to our land for the organization of collective farms and in his book several episodes devoted activities in the Orekhovsky district. Vasily Yakovlevich Egorov - a native of the village of Exodue - also part of his story dedicated to the process of becoming the first collective farms, his father, Yakov Egorov, was one of the first collective farmers.

Power novelty The chosen topic is that the history of the emergence, the formation and development of collective farms of our region has not been fully described anywhere. Academician D.S. Likhachev wrote: "Education of love for native edge, to the native culture, to the native city, to the native speech - the task of paramount importance, and there is no need to prove it ... " . Therefore, A.ktualniaresearch work is to preserve the history of our region, because such a form of organization of agricultural labor has already practically gone into the past, every year there are less and less people who remember the first collective farms. And our generation and subsequent generations to know the history of their edge is needed. This work is devoted to the goals for preserving the history of their edge.

Methodological basis Studies are determined by the principles of historicism and objectivity. The study of these problems in the paper was carried out with the integrated use of such methods as: 1) search - collecting the required material and search sources of information; 2) statistical - tracking the dynamics of changes; 3) analysis and processing of the data obtained; 4) comparison - comparison of facts; 5) generalization - conclusions.

Working on the problem of the history of the emergence of collective farms, we first appealed to various archival sources (certificates, collective farm lace books, production and financial plans of different years), as well as to the memoirs of the villagers, used newspaper articles of different years, fiction.

Structure Research work is represented by the introduction, the main part and the conclusion. The introduction defines goals, objectives, relevance and novelty of work. The main part is represented by two chapters: Chapter 1 gives the essence of the concepts of "collectivization" and "collective farm"; Chapter 2 describe the practical stages of the work, the interpretation of the data obtained during the study on collective farms created on the territory of the Orekhovsky village council and their reorganization. Each chapter is completed with conclusions. In conclusion, the most common conclusions are formulated based on the results of the study, and the degree of achievement of the goal, the results of testing the conditions of hypothesis are marked, the prospects for further research are indicated.

2. Main part

Chapter 1. The essence of the concepts of "collectivization", "collective farm".

Collectivization - The process of uniting sole peasant farms in collective farms (collective farms in the USSR). Collectivization was carried out in the USSR in the late 1920s - early 1930s.

The goal of collectivization is the formation of socialist industrial relations in the village, the elimination of small-handed production to resolve the grain difficulties and ensuring the country with the necessary number of commercial grain.

Agriculture of the country of the 20s was undermined by the First World War and Civil War, and repeated crop crop in Ukraine in 1928 put the country on the face of hunger, which, despite the measures taken, took place in certain regions of the country. As an exit of the "bread difficulties", the party leadership chose the socialist reconstruction of agriculture - the construction of state farms and collectivization of the poornyatsky farms. Agriculture, based mainly in small private property and manual work, was not able to satisfy the growing demand of the urban population for food products, and industry - on agricultural raw materials. Collectivization made it possible to form the necessary raw material base for the processing industry, since technical crops had very limited distribution in the conditions of small individual economy. Therefore, from Spring 1929, activities were held on the village aimed at an increase in the number of collective farms.

Collective farm - This is an association of workers of peasants leading a large collective agriculture in state land through common tools and means of production, collective labor of their members, with organizational, financial and technical assistance and leadership by the state. There were three forms of collective farm, which differ from one another from the extent to the socialization of the means of production of their members: a) the partnership for the public processing of the Earth (TZ), b) agricultural artel, c) Agricultural commune. There is a union of the land of its members into a single land array, which is treated with the collective labor of its members. In agricultural artel, the land use, basic tools and means of production and work. Residential house, productive livestock, bird and small agricultural inventory are not subject to the community, but remain in the personal property of the collective farm yard. Agricultural commune is characterized by an even higher degree of socialization than an agricultural artel. In communes are generalized land use, guns and means of production and labor.

The consolidation of collective farms has become aboutdestinations from the most important events in the further rise of agriculture and organizational and economic strengthening of collective farms. Small collective farms could not successfully develop the public economy, there was no opportunity to use with high productivity tractors, combines and other complex agricultural machines and comprehensively develop collective farm production.

Conclusion: the crisis of the 20s of the last century led to the need for the ubiquitous creation of collective farms, and since small collective farms could not successfully develop the public economy, there was a need for their consolidation.

Chapter 2. Creation and reorganization of collective farms in the territory of the Orekhovsky village council

    1. Creation of collective farms in the Orekhovsky district and the Orekhovsky village council

First, it should be noted that you need to distinguish the Orekhovsky district and the Orekhovsky Rural Council. Orekhovsky district - an administrative and territorial unit in the composition Leningrad region RSFSR with the center in Klimkovo's estate, which existed in 1927-1931. The Orekhovsky Rural Council was formed in the territory of the Orekhovsky district in 1927, the central estate was the village of Orekhovno.

Reference: Orekhovsky district - an administrative-territorial unit as part of the Leningrad Region of the RSFSR with the center in the Klimkovo estate, which existed in 1927-1931. The Orekhovsky district in the Borovichsky district of the Leningrad region was formed in August 1927 from 13 village councils of the Orekhovsky parish, 1 s / s Nikolo-frach volost (both parishes were included in the Borovich County of Novgorod province) and 5 s / s Ereminskaya Vosti Ustyuzhny district Cherepovets province. In total, 19 s / s: Balashevsky, Brodsky, Vyaltsevsky, Glebovsky, Gorsky, Dubishkinsky, Zhernovsky, Zakharkinsky, Krivtsovsky, Lubensky, Orekhovsky, Petrovsko-Estonian, Pogorelovsky, Ramensky, Ratkovsky, Semenkinsky, Chernyansky, Chuvashevo-Gorsky, Languages Gorsky. In November 1928, Balashevsky, Gorsky, Zakharkinsky, Krivtsovsky, Petrovsko-Estonian and Language Gorsky S / s were abolished. Chuvashevo Gorsky S / C was renamed sublock. On September 20, 1931, the Orekhovsky district was abolished, and its territory is included in the frach area. The frach area was formed in 1927 as part of the Borovichsky District of the Leningrad Region. From July 23, 1930, directly as part of the Leningrad region. On September 20, 1931, according to the decree of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee, the abolished Orekhovsky district was joined to the frach district. By decree of the Presidium of the USSR Sun of July 5, 1944, an independent Novgorod region was formed and the area was included in its composition. In 1963, the area was abolished, and its territory entered the created Borovichsky rural area. The decree of the Presidium of the Armed Forces of the RSFSR of January 12, 1965 was recreated by a frach area. Orekhovsky rural council was formed in 1927. On October 9, 1993, the rural council was transformed into the administration of the Orekhovsky village council. June 10, 1996 - to the Orekhovsky rural administration. July 15, 1997 - to the administration of the Orekhovsky village council on January 1, 2006 - to the administration of the Orekhovsky rural settlement.

According to data obtained from archival documents, as well as by testimonies of the villagers, the first collective farm was organized in 1929 in the d. Exodusovo Orekhovsky district, since the collective farm was first called "forward". V.Ya. Egorov in the story "Fatherland" writes: "In the outcome of six neighboring families ... built a barnyard, about 30 cows, and a great riga with a gum, Konsky-drive bought a horse-driven with a thuscot and a flask and created a tension. The district bosses were near (only 5 km), and it gave an indication instead of the tension to organize a collective farm and call it "forward", since he was created in the Orekhovsky district. The chairman of the collective farm elected Novikov Stepan Egorovich ... ".

Then began to create collective farms in others in other villages. According to various sources, its collective farm has been created in each village. By 1930, 11.5% of farms were collectivized, total number The collective farms in the Orekhovsky district in August 1930 was 20, as evidenced by the Directory of the districts of the Leningrad Region of 1930. The collective farms that were created are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

List of collective farms formed in Orekhovsky district, 1930

Name collective farm

Name village

Kolkhoz "Forward"

Exodus

Kolkhoz "name of Stalin"

Orekhovo

Collective farm "Red Pahar"

Ivanovo

Collective farm "New way"

Pokrovskoe

Kolkhoz "Proletary"

Lubenskoye

Kolkhoz "Lenin name"

Collective farm "Freedom"

Collective farm "Example"

Semenkino

Collective farm "To socialism"

Collective farm "name Kalinina"

Korsicovo

Collective farm "Red Berezhok"

Collective farm "Red Niva"

Runs

Collective farm "Fisherman"

Pogorelovo

Collective farm "Red Surf"

Morozovo

Collective farm "volunteer"

Anisimovo.

Collective farm "Red Banner"

Cracpuchi

Kolkhoz "Kulotinets"

Ratkovo

In the process of work, another document was discovered, this is the response to the fraud regional executive committee from the Orekhovsky village council at the disposal of No. 120 of November 20, 1965, dated December 10, 1965. This document refers to other collective farms formed in 1929-30. Presumably, these collective farms did not enter the directory by the districts of the Leningrad region. The collective farms specified in this document belong to the Orekhovsky Rural Council, the Orekhovsky district was completed in 1931. The collective farms organized by 1930 are presented in Table 2.

table 2

List of collective farms Orekhovsky village council, 1930

Name collective farm

Name village

Kolkhoz "name of Stalin"

Orekhovo

Collective farm "Change"

Nikolaevskoye

Collective farm "Red Gorka"

Collective farm "True"

Grigorovo.

Collective farm "New Stroy"

Yezdunovo.

Kolkhoz "Surf"

Zynovkovo

Collective farm " New life»

Kolkhoz "Forward"

Exodus

Kolkhoz "Science"

Varygino

Collective farm "worker"

Ostno

Collective farm "Red Clay"

Vaskovo

Collective farm "Kolos"

Nikiforovo

Collective farm "name Kalinina"

Korsicovo

Collective farm "Red Fighter"

Collective farm "Red Lighthouse"

Kolkhoz "New Victory"

Kolkhoz "Bolshevik"

Berezovik

Collective farm "Red Activist"

Collective farm "2 five-year plan"

The collective farm, which was formed in the village of Orekhovno in 1930, was called the name "name of Stalin". Work on the creation of a collective farm in Orekhovna led 25-thousand from Petrograd Ivan Kuzmich Sizov, who was the chairman until 1933, as evidenced by his letter, presumably addressed to the teacher of the Orekhov School of Mary Ivanovna Fedorova.

After analyzing the reference book to the districts of the Leningrad Region for 1930, we concluded that the Kolkhoz "name of Stalin" was initially the most powerful collective farm compared to other collective farms. He consisted of 203 people of the population and 1260.36 hectares of land.

    1. Reorganization of collective farms

The process of the reorganization of Soviet collective farms touched upon the collective farms formed in the territory of the Orekhovsky district in the 30s of the last century. After analyzing the data on the collective farms of the Orekhovsky district, which entered the directory by the districts of the Leningrad Region, we concluded that they were absolutely different in the number of people, land and power. Collective farms having low power began to enter more powerful collective farms. So, in 1934, the collective farm "Forward" joined the collective farm "New Life". In 1937, the collective farm "surf" joined the collective farm "New Stroy". In 1950, the collective farm "change", "Red Gorka", "True", in the collective farm "New Life" were joined in the Kolkhoz "New Life", "New Story", "Science" and "May 1" , in the collective farm "Kolos" - the collective farms "Red Clay", "Worker", in the collective farm "Red Wrestlers" - "Red Lighthouse", "New Victory", "Bolshevik". In 1959, the collective farm "name of Stalin" united with the collective farm "Kolos". In 1961, the collective farm "New Life" joined the Kolkhoz "Name Stalin". In 1962, the Kolkhoz "name of Stalin" was renamed to the Kolkhoz "Russia". In 1963, the Bolshevik path was included in the Russian collective farm. As a result of 20 collective farms formed by the 30th year on the territory of the Orekhovsky village council, two large collective farms were obtained: "Soviet Russia" in Orekhovna and Avangard in Tubishki. Since 1954, Dubicheski has entered the Dubishkinsky village council. The scheme for the reorganization of collective farms is presented in the diagram.

In 1963, the Kolkhoz "Russia" was renamed Soviet Russia. The Kolkhoz "Soviet Russia" existed until 1992, after which it was transformed into a limited liability partnership "Russia".

2.3 . The value of the collective farm "Soviet Russia"

By the end of the 1960s, the collective farm has become one of the most economically powerful collective farms in the frach area. For example, in 1965, in the collective farm of the working population, there were 229 men and 279 women, settlements - 19, sowing wheat - 11 hectares, barley - 29 hectares, oats - 235 hectares, Lyon - 500g, potatoes - 162 hectares, wheat - 5 hectares, rye winter - 469 hectares. Its very much proves the fact that this economy in 1968 became a member of the VDNH. Together with the chairman of Ivanov Ivanovich, Vasilyevis participants were the Brigadiers N. Mukhin, N. Galkin - for the high crop of grain, links on the flax of E. Slavyantseva, O.Vasilleva, E. Smirnova, as well as mechanisters and workers of livestock farms, as animal husbandry in the collective farm It became at that time the most profitable industry.

Conclusion: By the end of 1930, a collective farm appeared on the territory of the Orekhovsky village council. The most powerful collective farm became the Kolkhoz "name of Stalin". For more than a 60-year history of the existence of a collective farm, a complex path of constant consolidation was held. By 1963, two of the 20 collective farms were two: the Kolkhoz "Russia" ("Soviet Russia") and the collective farm "Avangard", as they were the most powerful and most significant in the area of \u200b\u200bcollective farms.

    Conclusion

Summing up the research work, we can conclude that the target set is fulfilled, all tasks are solved. The hypothesis, the hypothesis found its confirmation in the fact that the processes of reforming agriculture that occurred in the country in the 20-60 years of the last century, touched on both our edge. At the end of the 20s, mass collectivization took place on the territory of the Orekhovsky district, then the process of enlarging collective farms was followed, as farms with low power were harder to survive. All this managed to confirm through archival documents, memories, fiction. It should be noted that the period covered research workIs large enough, so in the work it was not possible to reflect the inner side of the collective farms, namely, the management of collective farms, the composition of the collective farms, the property of collective farms, the types of work performed by the collective farmers. These problems can be the prospects for further research.

Sources

Literature:

    Fatherland. / In the town of Zhabnin. - Velikiy Novgorod, 2014./394 p.

    Administrative and territorial division of the Novgorod province and region. 1727 - 1995: Handbook. Committee of Culture, Tourism and Archival Business of the Novgorod Region. State Archive of the Novgorod region. - St. Petersburg., 2009. 352c.

Archival documents:

    Archival documents of the school (photos, memories, cards, letters)

    Documents of the Fraud District Arch Republic (historical references, land cord books, etc.)

Internet resources:

    Big Academic DictionaryHttp: //dic.academic.ru

    Site of the Leningrad Regional Universal Scientific Library http://lopress.47lib.ru/

    Site of the Orekhovsky rural settlement http://orehovskoe.ru.

How did the collective farmers live in the 1930s?

For a start, it is necessary to divide what period of the "Stalinsky collective farms" are speech. The first years of young collective farms differ straight from the mature collective farms of the late 30s, not to mention the post-war collective farms of the early 50s. Even the collective farms of the mid-30s of the twentieth century are already qualitatively different from collective farms literally 2-3 years ago.


Collective farm 30th

Signature to the photo Y. Dolgushina: The collective farm is collective economic. It works well when people are working in it, but everything works bad when people are idle.

The period of organization of any new case "from scratch" necessarily passes a very difficult period, which not everyone can successfully pass. But so everywhere and always. In the same way, everywhere occurs during capitalism. How many life stories are about the fact that, for example, a farmer first lived a bad and injunction, and then it was equipped and began to quickly rich. Or an entrepreneur who lived with his family in a wretched apartment with clouds and cockroaches, but all the money and forces were inserted into the development of his business. This topic is constantly sucked in books and films - as it lived badly at the beginning, then the rich, it means it is necessary to work better, it is necessary to behave correctly and everything will be done. It would be more than strange to arrange a hysteria about how bad they lived "then" and on the basis of this to blame, for example, America and capitalism. Such a propagandist would rightly take for idiot. With collective farms, the same thing happened, and propaganda without tired of hysteria for decades, about the difficulties of the organizational period. The fact that with a puppy delight is accepted "in countries with a market economy" as a sample of intelligent and master's behavior under capitalism.

The collective farms were not state-owned enterprises, but were associations of individuals. As in any such organizations, there was a lot of hard work and the skills of the owner workers themselves and, clear, from the leaders selected by them. Obviously, if such an organization consists of propoice, idlers and eaves, and at the head there will be no good leader, then shareholders will live very badly in any country. But again, the fact that in countries from the "Civilization Pilot Road" is taken with delight as a sample of justice, in relation to the USSR is exhibited by a sample of a nightmare, although the reasons for the failure of such an organization are the same. TO Soviet Union There are some insane requirements made from the muddy heads of anti-Sovetchists, it is understood that absolutely in all collective farms should be provided simply paradise, regardless of the efforts of the workers themselves, and all the collective farmers for their ideas live not just better farmers in the warmest, fertile and developed countries, and live better than the best farmers.

In order to compare the life of a collective farmer, it is necessary to have a sample for comparison and the parameters for which this comparison is coming. The anti-Soversists always compare some kind of crumpled worker of incomprehensible qualities from the worst collective farm with a pre-revolutionary fist or, as a last resort, a very wealthy peasant, and not at all with the unchanged poor of the Tsarist Russia, which would be fair - the lower revenues of the strata are compared. Or is the comparison of the poorest collective farmers with wealthy offacarious farmers from the United States, and not semi-abnormal, the farm of which is laid for debts. The reasons for this cheap fraud are clear - after all, it will be necessary at the lowest layer of peasants to take into account the benefits, which, then in countries from the "Pilot Road" they did not even have, such as free medical support, education, nursery, kindergartens, access to culture and etc. It will be necessary to take into account the natural conditions and the absence of wars and ruin and other factors. If we compare wealthy peasants from capitalist countries, then you should compare their life with rich collective farmers from the millionaire collective farms. But then it becomes immediately clear that the comparison even in unfavorable historical conditions will not be in favor of the enemies of the USSR. That is, as everywhere, anti-Sovers - ordinary scammers. We emphasize once again that Soviet Socialism never promised to a paradise life, everything that he promised is the equality of opportunities and fair payment for labor and abilities to anyone reachable. The rest is delusional fantasies of inadequate citizens or manipulative propaganda of conscious enemies.


2. Soviet women collective farmers collective farm Klyshev (Moscow region)


The Selgian Plateler at the beginning of the 30s became the main, and soon the only form of collective farms in agriculture - to this collective farms were often called all forms of joint management. The first charter of the Selochastic Arteel was adopted in 1930, and his new edition - in 1935 at the All-Union Congress of Kolkhoznikov Herkers. The land was fixed for artel in perpetual use, no sale, nor rental. Members of Arteel could be all the working people who have reached the age of 16, except for the former exploiters (Kulakov, landowners, etc.), but at certain cases, the adoption of "former" in the collective farms was allowed. The Chairman and the Board were elected by the general voting of members of Artel. In order to understand how Artel existed, it is necessary to understand how it disposed of its products. The products produced by the agriculture was distributed as follows:

"From the resulting array of crop and animal products, Artel:

a) fulfills its obligations to the state for the supply and return of seed loans, it pays in kind with a machine-tractor station for the work of MTS in accordance with the contract that has the force of the law and performs contracts for contracting;

b) falls asleep seeds for sowing and fodder for the proximation of livestock for all annual need, as well as for insurance against crawling and nonsense, creates inviolable, renewable seed and feed funds in the amount of 10-15 percent of the annual need;

c) creates, by decision of the General Assembly, the Funds of assistance to persons with disabilities, the old men, temporarily lost the ability to be able to need the families of the Red Army, for the maintenance of children's nursery and orphans - all this in the amount of not over 2 percent of gross production;

d) allocates in the sizes determined by the General Meeting of the members of Artel, part of products for the sale of the state or to the market;

d) The rest of the harvest of artel and her livestock products, the Artel distributes the Arteel on the workshops among members. "

Note, everything is completely true and exactly the same mechanism operates in the enterprises of all countries - at first obligations under contracts, taxes, funds aimed at maintaining the fee of the organization, development funds, social assistance, and the rest can already be divided between shareholders. An indicative fact is a concern for disabled people, orphans, old men, etc. She lay on the nuclearkets, the village perceived it completely normal - to take care of the weak "all of the world" (that is, the community) fully corresponded to the mentality of the Russian peasant. It is on the silence that the Artel cared for dependents (as, for example, about the nursery), the hysteria raised into the restructuring that "collective farmers in the Stalin's USSR did not receive pensions." They did not receive a state pension, because they were obliged to take care of the native collective farm, who knew them perfectly, and did not give out abstract payments from pension funds. The collective farms in the days of Stalin had a very large economic and management autonomy, strongly cut into the time of Khrushchev. Then I had to introduce pensions for collective farmers, because the collective farms have undermined by the administrative dictate, the collective farms began to experience financial difficulties.

From the history of my family - in the village, from where my grandmother, in the southern Urals, was organized in the mid-20s in the mid-20s, one of the first collective farms was organized, if it was even more accurate, it was the commune, then converted to the collective farm. There was a blinded at the beginning of the 20s after the injured in the Russian-Japanese war my great-grandfather. Both of his son and son-in-law (my grandfather) fought in the White Army. One son died, daughter with his family and the other son left the village (by the way, no one did anything for the war on the side of the White), and the great-grandfather was very promiscuous (but not a fist). The collective farm entered the way - the great-grandfather and his plot were the decision of the "World" transferred to two poor families (yes, the house was such a size) who had deprived of the breadwinners in the first world and civilian, and the great-grandfather was taken by the Communication (collective farm) for full lifelong content. In the house he was allocated a room, every day it came to preparing and care for him a collective farmer girl, the family of which was counted for it, when they appeared (before that, the products in the agricultural committee were equally distributed). He lived, until he died from the consequences of injured in the early 1930s.

The principle of faithful was very simple and fair. The average workload was considered as a result of work not average, but a weak employee. In order to standardize the payment terms in 1933, the USSR Dersication issued the decisions that have recognized the practice of practicing the official form of remuneration of remuneration in collective farms. Once again - the workforum was the folk invention that had already established in reality practice, and not a scheme invented by the "Stalinist cannodies" to "express the peasants to the collective farm gulag." Agricultural workers were divided into 7 levels with coefficients from 0.5 to 1.5. More qualified or heavy work could be paid at a maximum of three times more easy and unqualified. Most of all the workers were made for blacksmiths, mechanisters, the governing staff of the collective farm administration. The least earned collective farmers on auxiliary unqualified work, which is quite fair. For the work from "dawn to dawn" and increased work out an extra work out.



3. Issue bread on workload. Ukraine, S. Udary, 1932


Around vehicle B. last years There was a huge number of lies. The number of mandatory workdays for "powerless slaves" was 60 (!) - 100 (depending on the area) in the 1930s. Only in war, the number of mandatory workflows was increased to 100-150. But this is a mandatory norm, and how many peasants worked in reality? But how much: the average development of one collective farm yard in 1936 was 393 days, 1937. - 438 (197 workday per employee), in 1939 the average collective farm earned 488 workdays.

In order to believe that they didn't give anything to the workformer, "it is necessary to be weak in the clinical sense - the middle peasant worked 2-3 times more than it was required, hence the payment depended on the amount and quality of labor and it was sufficient motivation to give multiple generation. If it were not really given anything to work, then no one would have to work more than the norm.

It is significant that with the beginning of the destruction of the Stalin system Khrushchev in 1956 the number of mandatory workflows was increased to 300-350. The results were not forced to wait long - the first problems with the products appeared.

What did they do in the "Stalinist collective farms" with non-fulfillment of the norm on workload? Probably immediately directed to the gulag or straight to the shot polygon? Still more terrible - it was dealing with the collective farm commission and if they did not find good reasons (for example, a person was sick), they were shaped on a collective farm meeting and with a systematic violation of standards (usually more than 2 years in a row) by the decision of the meeting could be excluded from the collective farm with the removal of the household site . Housing of the collective farmer could not deprive. The human right to housing was guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR. Naturally, in reality, a person who is tightened by a rural community, left the village as it happens everywhere in the world. It is only in the heads torn away from the reality of citizens life in the village community - the chest pastoral, in fact she is very tough with very clearly unsolicited rules that are better not to violate.


4. Friendly court over the simulators in the collective farm. Ukraine, Kiev region 1933.


How many collective farmers earned on the workload, and then a quarter of a century, all sorts of rogues in the media come in hysterics, telling about the "starving collective farmers", and when the rogues are pressed by the facts, the stories of unnamed grandmothers "remember" that "nothing did not give. " Even if you exclude fully invented characters, it is more or less really to evaluate the surrounding reality and directly earn the workformer (16 years old) in the most difficult for collective farms, the period of the early 1930s, the average grandmother of the teacher should have been at the most later 1918 -1920 year birth. For someone who will not listen, so all of them before the revolution there were two cows, a huge house, indoor iron, two horses, the most modern inventory and a couple of the tits of the Earth. I wonder how all these citizens come from, if there were 65% of the poor before the revolution in the village, almost in 100% of cases of dying and 20% of small-earth middle peasants, whose and speeches could not even be about two cows? Weightful middling constituted only 10% of the population, and 5% fists. So where did these "grandmothers fairy tales" come from? If you assume it honesty (although not to consider false information issued by the "grandmothers") and the honesty of the transfers their stories even in the 90s, then the adequacy of the described picture is unlikely to be called high. There will be a lot of questions unexplained - in which family there lived a person how well the family worked as far as workers were how successful the collective farm was, about what years it is about specifically and so on. Obviously, everyone wants to present their family in a favorable light, because few people will say "Dad was an awesome lazy, and the whole family is so, so we didn't pay a fucking," and "The Chair who chose my parents was a swap and quotion, but The man was soulful, dad and mother loved to drink with him, "" He himself detected and given the other, just because he did not die with hunger. " In this case, it is obvious that the reasons for the material difficulties in the family are not related to the collective farm organization of labor. Although such citizens have a clear case, the Soviet power is to blame. By the way, in which her "wine" is that such citizens survived generally, grew and often learned. In the lawospatest, which-we-we lost the fate of families of eesemary and lazy people, as a rule, quite sadly. But in the Tsarist Russia, this is delighted as a sample of justice, and much the best life for the same citizens in the Stalin collective farms causes a seizure of hatred.

But there are many evidence of stories, drawing a completely different picture, both from family stories and evidence of collective farmers of those years collected by scientists, as it should be. Here is an example of such testimony about how the collective farms of the beginning of the mid-30s lived:

"Most Kharlamian peasants considered a collective farm cell of a fair public device. The feeling of unity, joint work and the prospects for increasing the culture of agriculture, the culture of life in terms of a collective farm system inspired. The collective farmers in the evenings went to the hut-reading room, where the sputum read the newspaper. The ideas of Lenin believed. In the revolutionary holidays, the streets were decorated with Kumach. In days on May 1 and 7, there were crowded columns of demonstrators from the whole of the wholes with red flags from the village to the village and sang ... In collective farm meetings, there were passionately, frankly, the meetings ended with singing "International". Songs went to work and from work. "

What is significant - the passage is not given from the "Stalinist propaganda" - and these are memories of collective farmers collected by honest and independent researchers, very hostile relating to the Stalinist period as a whole. I can add that my relatives spoke the same thing. Now it will seem amazing - but people went to work in a collective farm or a factory with joy and sang on the way.


5. Collective farm young. 1932, Shagin


But all personal memories, even recorded as it should be, have their own limitation - they may be marked by the follow-up, emotions, which imposed interpretation, selective perception, promotion of the "restructuring" times, the desire to tell what is not beyond public opinion and so on. Is it possible to objectively appreciate how the collective farmers lived in reality? Yes, quite, statistical data and serious scientific research More than enough to talk about it as an established fact.


6. Amateur peasant spiritual orchestra in a poor Jewish collective farm. Ukraine 1936, Panin


The gradation of collective farms in consistency and, accordingly, the average standard of living is subordinate to them, on average, the famous Gausskoy distribution, which is not surprising, they knew it perfectly in Stalin's times. Averaged by year, 5% of the collective farms were rich successful collective farms, approximately 15% of strong wealthy collective farms were adjacent, on the other hand - 5% of poor collective farms, which are adjacent to a somewhat more successful 15% of the poor, and about 60% were collective farms, middle peasants. Probably, even the middle intelligence, the hens is obvious that the level of income and life of the peasants of rich collective farms was much higher than the standard of living of the peasants of poor collective farms and talking about how they lived in the collective farm - to significantly distort the picture, as in the expression " average temperature in the hospital. " The averaged data will show the standard of living of the medium collective farm in about 60% of the collective farms and nothing more. Let's see how big the living standard of peasants in various collective farms than before the revolution and why. After all, we assure us that in the USSR there was equalized and people were "completely uninterested in working." Yeah, "completely unfinished", but nevertheless, on average, the norm according to the country (50-100) was exceeded by 3-5 times.

The average collective farm yard by 1940 was 3.5 people, against 6 in Tsarist Russia - the crushing of farms began immediately after the civilian land, after the section of the landlord and royal lands. And in 1932 the middle peasant family consisted of about 3.6-3.7 people. The critical face of hunger in the Tsarist Russia was approximately 245 kg per person (15.3 pounds) - without taking into account the fodder grain for livestock and poultry, but she was not even considered a hungry face in the royal standards, this level of Tsarist Russia reached only in the years later at the end of its existence. The line of mass hunger according to the standards of Tsarist Russia was 160 kg per person, this was when children began to die from malnutrition. That is, on average, the collective farm peasant in the USSR received bread on the workload in 1932 about as much as it was enough in the literal sense not to die with hunger (162 kg). However, the royal peasant except the grain in the grain areas grown little more - under the grain there was almost all the Earth available for sowing grain, the energy value of wheat in our climate is the highest in relation to yield. So, Potatoes Middle Peasant in Tsarist Russia of the most favorable years 1910-1913 consumed 130 kg per soul per year, vegetables and fruits 51.4 kg.

And what is the Soviet collective farmer? In the worst 1932-1933, the average peasant economy received 230 kg of potatoes and 50 kg of vegetables from the collective farm, that is, 62 and 13.7 kg per person.

However, the products obtained by the peasant are not exhausted at all exhaustingly earned for workload. The second, and in some cases, the first income of the income of a collective farm peasant is a product of a personal compound. However, we are talking yet about the "middle peasant" of the middle collective farm. From personal farm In 1932-1933, the collective farm peasants received per capita on average approximately17 kg of grain, potatoes - 197 kg, vegetables - 54 kg, meat and sala - 7 kg, milk - 141 liters. (ibid)

That is, if you compare Russia the most prosperous years and the USSR of the most disadvantaged 1932-1933, then the picture of the average food consumption on the village will be as follows:


The first column is the data of Klepikov at the best years of the Tsarist Russia, the last column - the Tsarist Russia of the twentieth century on average according to data in Russia until 1910 in 212 kg per Soul led the Prince of Svyatopolk-Mirsky at a meeting of the State Duma.

That is, the peasants of the USSR 1932-1933. There are much more potatoes, but less bread, compared to tsarist Russia. The average caloric content of wheat varieties of those years is about 3100 kcal / kg, potatoes 770 kcal / kg, that is, approximately 1 to 4. If you take the USSR difference in 1932 and the best years of Tsarist Russia in the consumption of potatoes and recalculate in efficient grain calories, then such Conditional grain The average collective farmer would consume just 212 kg - exactly as much as he eaten the royal peasant of the beginning of the twentieth century.

Plus, the Soviet peasant received other products and agriculture products from the collective farm - milk, hay, etc., but I could not find data about this in 1932-33. Also, the Soviet collective farmer received an additional 108 rubles for work per year, which a little exceeded the average monthly salary in the industry of 1932. At the residents and in other cooperatives, the Middle Soviet farmers of 1933 (732 there is no data) received 280 rubles. per year. That is, just the middle peasant earned for the year about 290 rubles - almost a quarter of the annual income of the average worker, and the royal peasant to get the money should have sold part of the crop.

As we see from the given data, no universal catastrophe in the village in the first years of collective farms should not be close. It was hard, it's yes. But he lived after the civil and "skillful" royal rule the whole country. In general, the food situation in 1932-1933 in collective farms was about the same as on average in Tsarist Russia, but noticeably worse than in Russia of 1913 or the USSR, the times of the best years of late NEP.

That is, on average, no catastrophic hunger is evoked, despite the "grandmother's stories" and the hysterics of all sorts of fraudsters from history. Also the wrong fans of the USSR of the Stalinist period, arguing that everything was excellent and serious problems on the village - bitches of enemies. This is not true. In the middle collective farms of 1932-1933, the injignment lived for two years, this is indeed confirmed by an easy analysis. Alas, life injured for Russia last couple centuries. A good life in the material sense of 1932-1933 is impossible to be called a nightmare and poverty - the same. It is absolutely impossible to forget that the Soviet peasant received free medical support and education, kindergartens and a nursery, about which even in the royal times could not even dream of a very prosperous peasants, it should also be forgotten about a sharply grew up the level of culture in the village. In a moral and spiritual plan, in terms of social security, the village of 1932-1933 began to live simply inextensively better and the tsarist area of \u200b\u200bthe Major Benestheskaya Village of the late NEP.


7. Collection of collective farmers, Donetsk region, mid 30s


It is not difficult to guess that teachers in schools, professors in institutes, doctors in hospitals, librarians in libraries and all other workers had to pay and more - to train them, and not only militant, but even paying the scholarship as it was in the USSR. Just the Soviet state redistributed the received taxes, the surplus value and other means are not among the narrow bunch of Bogatyev, but returned their people in one form or another, and for those who wanted to assign popular good, Gulag and NKVD were. We missed one more "small" detail - "robbed" by the Soviet power of the peasants for the first time in history received absolutely the same rights as other estates or, if more correctly, social groups - Do not consider the peasant children who have made not just a dizzying, but a fantastic career in Soviet power. Some have achieved the fact that in any state beyond fiction - young peasants have grown to the level of the state elite of the highest level. For the Soviet peasant, absolutely all roads were opened - the peasants became doctors, engineers, professors, academics, military units, cosmonauts, writers, artists, artists, singers, musicians, ministers ... by the word, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Gorbachev, Yeltsin - Suites from the peasants.

If we take into account the sharply growing level of mechanization and much more reasonable organization of labor, living in the village has become somewhat easier than before collectivization, given how much more reasonable collective farm organization of labor, as well as services obtained in the collective farm for the same workload, for example, the use of building materials or Plowing of the nauded site. It believes that this is a trifle, I strongly recommend personally to speed up a spade half of the arable land for a more adequate perception of reality. Falsifiers describing the "horrors of the collective farm Gulag" and "collective farm slavery" are trying to submit the case as if the most source of food for collective farmers was obtained on the workload. It is very wrong. We have already shown a great contribution of personal farm, which was an integral part of the collective farm life. But even this is not all. There were some more fairly notable sources of food that did not exist before. Almost everywhere in collective farms in the field of field work, food was organized due to the collective farm of all able-bodied workers - collective farm canteens for brigades operating in the field. It was very reasonable - the average labor costs for cooking for 50 people are many times less than if everyone is prepared separately. In schools there were preferential or free lunches, food in kindergartens and nursery was almost free and went from the collective farm foundations, and in the case of their absence, from district, regional, republican and, further, state.


8. The Komsomolets and the working collective farm guard the seed and insurance funds, with. Olshan, Kharkiv region, 1933


Also not taken into account the funds of assistance, which were introduced when the food situation was hazardous. The collective farmer was issued bread loans or gratuitous assistance, as, by the way, and soles, in addition, food in collective farm canteens, schools, nursery and kindergartens were issued. However, at the very beginning of the formation, this system in a number of places is ineffective, for example, in Ukraine at the beginning of the 30s, where local authorities concealed the real catastrophic state of affairs and assistance from the state-in-law began to stand too late. It is to these funds that the famous hysterical "memories of grandmothers" on the topic, "" did not give out anything, "but the question, and how you remained alive, answer the question" somehow survived. " This "somehow" refers to state and intercoleous assistance, which the Soviet authorities organized that unworthy people are not observed in the emphasis.


9. Collective farm "New Life". 1931. Shagin


In general, if we take into account the sharply growing level of mechanization and much more reasonable labor organization (dining rooms, kindergartens, collective plowing of sites, etc.), then live on the village it became noticeably easier than before collectivization, even in 1932-1933.

The Chairman of the collective farm chose a general meeting with open vote, after discussing the nominated candidate.

In the village all people in sight. A friend about each other, if not all, then a lot knows and especially about the character of a man and his abilities. It was brightly manifested in the collective farm meeting, when the chairman of Arteel was elected first. The collective farm meeting was noisy, whom to choose to chair. The authorized district office suggested that the chairmen of an elderly person brought from Holmogor. But he was not supported, the nature of Northerners was manifested. Its election "Andrei Vashukova, let's, serious man, though young," cried out of the hall.

A new surprise for the organizers of the collective farm appeared that the chairmen put forward a young man, slim, high with blue eyes, almost white eyebrows and a very serious expression on the face - Andrei Petrovich Vashukova.

Rural authorities were supported by Andrei, and the statement of Ilya Grigorievich Abakumov was made a special impression. After that, the speech for Andrei Petrovich voted everything. An embarrassed, who did not expect such confidence, Andrei Petrovich only said that after all, you would need to work as well as in my individual, now in my collective farm.

After the meeting, Ilya Grigorievich approached Andrei and, having passed his hand on his shoulder, said he was now for everyone in response. Andrei, in turn, replied that he really does not know what to start work tomorrow. "And you collect in the morning, they will tell you what and how to do."

The chairman began with the glow. Active, restless, he instilled as if his qualities to fellow villagers. He walked around the houses, early, irremissive and raised raised. It sought to wake up the unearned conscience. He and women did not gem, where caressing, and where and the firm word killed the collective farmers to care about the general farm, as they say, to discipline.

The board of the collective farm paid the biggest attention to animal husbandry, seeing the main link in it, and was not mistaken. Thanks to the right organization of work on the development of animal husbandry, the collective farm was subsequently one of the best in our country. Not in the area, not in the area, but in the entire Soviet Union - the best collective farm. A collective farm and a plan for logging, where practically the best (in physical terms) of the collective farm people worked. The first steps of the young Chairman who watched a strong discipline responded with good and that everyone from Mala was worked, regardless of sentiment and various child feelings. He was close to people, knew their moods and needs, showed care for them, was with people, and not over people, they consulted with them.

Andrei Petrovich Kolkhoznikov was located in the nature of character, the peasant surrounding, and raise and honesty. The land loved, each field knew and demanded to fertilize the land with organic fertilizer. All dung - on the fields, that's what he sought. Schoolchildren were attracted to the collapse of ashes in each house (the stoves were treated with firewood, so there were a lot of ash). He considered himself the defendant before the people of the collective farm, for his work.

The name of Petrovich and obsessed, and the stronger, stingy for the consumption of collective farm money and the "non-conscious" for not drinking and did not drive and the companies did not treat various Commissioners. For that, he was loved by collective farmers and the general efforts were sought to withdraw their collective farm and the chairman from difficult situations that arose in the thirties very often.

The main thing in the success of the Chair was that he was not alone led the agriculture, but managed to organize the work of the Board and each member of the Board. At the board of the collective farm chose the most hardworking collective farmers, specialists, people who can stand up for the common cause, as well as people with rich life experiences. They made their own knowledge and experience in the work of the Board. The Chairman together with the members of the Board decided. From the collective farmers, nothing was tali, at meetings of the Board discussed frankly any issue and recorded. The chairman with specialists was consulted: Zootechnik Diai Karkavtseva, a branch of Vasily Ivanovich Padchini, an accountant of the collective farm Semyon, and especially with the opinion of local authorities - Ilya Grigorievich Abakumov, Andrei Afanasyevich Vaschukov, the brothers of anti-view, the vertex, Rudakov and many other noble farmers from the village of Stupino, whose names I remember badly. In those the first years of the collective farm life, a common meeting was considered the owner of the collective farm, on which the main questions were solved. In the first months, or rather, at the first collective farm meetings, at the suggestion of the board, it was decided to build cowshes, veals and stables, where and organize the struggle for milk ones, the growth of young and the population of collective farm horses, believing that the feed base is possible to create good horses in the presence of good horses. . The collective farmers supported the decision of the meeting case. Loomed on the construction of collective farm courtyards was borrowed loan and tes, harvested for the construction of their homes and went out to the whole world for collective farm construction. In front of the district bosses, the chairman did not inconscelerate his head, always had a "trump card": "So decided at the general meeting."

In Ichkov and the Stupin, it was one animal husbandry, field brigade, a brigade of lumberjacks (to work on logging in winter time) and carpenters brigade for the construction of collective farm buildings. Successfully selected brigadiers responsible for the entrusted business began to play a big role in the establishment of collective labor, taking as a basis of accounting made by each collective farmer, followed by payment according to work. The kernel was created all year round workers in the collective farm, and in the field and building brigades - part, smaller, their members in winter worked in the collective farm, and large on logging. All members of the brigadiers worked for workdays except logging. Payment for the work of collective farmers was kind and money for workday.

The first brigade of the carpenters was headed by Peter Grigorievich Abakumov. The brigade gathered the best masters. Tes saw themselves. Bought only glass Yes Iron fittings. They built a barn, calf, scenes and stables.

Thirty-first year put cows and calves in good premises on 1oo heads. Traffic courtyards were built by projects, but taking into account the conditions of the North, proposals of experienced livestock breeders. The cows were put on a binding, equipped along the feeders. The ceiling was used firmly to bring the hay on it. At the ends of the courtyard - pipes for resetting the hay down to the feeders. In the barns were mounted floors of tightly fitted boards in the spool; Along the passage from both sides, a gutter was shown, where the liquid was flowed from the stall made with a slope from the feeder to the groove. The gutter was also with a bias for self-timel or washing a cow. The shore guard systematically drove the manure with water and shovel along this groove to the receiver, built near the barn. Thanks to this, there was a good microclimate in the room. Millies were delivered from unpleasant odor. During the milking, it smelled exclusively with pair milk.

Food for livestock was the first concern for the board and chairman of the collective farm. The feed was blank the field brigade. Alexander Petrovich Abakumov was the first brigadier of the field brigade in Ichkov Upper. This brigade blanket hay, silage, root and potatoes for livestock, as a rule, in sufficient quantity. The scenes were new and managed only thanks to the strictest observance of all the rules of soulings. In winter, milk supersedly increased, the collective farm cassum began to be replenished, therefore, payment for workday. The concern of the board and the chairperson about good full work and money, and in kind was the first. Initially, payment for workday was low, but increased every year. Steel more accurate to provide the weekends to collective farmers who are constantly working in collective farm. True, in the sowing and cleaning dayders were only in bad weather.

In the first year of collective farm life, the departure to the city was the same as before the collective farm. Everyone knew when and in what city, and for how long the peasant, now the collective farmer from Ichkova will leave. But it was only in the first collective farm summer. The organization of the collective farm intervened in the life of St. Petersburg. I got a question straight: "or you are working, or a collective farmer, something one." Earth moved to the collective farm forever. By the beginning of the thirty-first year, everything was determined in our family of St. Petersburg. Brother Stepan and Nyur's sister became workers, Mikhail - Technical school students, mother, brother Yakov with his wife Alexandra and I became collective farmers (Father in the fall of the thirtieth year died). Brother Andrei served in the army.

The Board of the collective farm, the party and the Komsomol organizations pay great attention to young people, trying to instill love for the earth, to the collective farm. It was necessary because St. Petersburg, and there were a lot of them in Ichkov, praised urban life and just took their children and grandchildren to the city to learn by the hereditary craft.

The collective farmers from the first days of the creation of a collective farm worked with the full return of all mental and physical forces. After all, everyone came to the collective farm virtually voluntarily, Gurth and the Arteel showed the original Russian sense of artist, inherent in Northerners. Before the carelessness, unscrupulousness and negligence. The youth brought up conscientiousness, respect for elders and women, goodwill and especially decency. We, then young people, firmly learned that no money would be able to compensate for the drop in the conscientiousness of the collective farm. The meaning of decency was then understood as follows: a decent person is the one who keeps himself decently, as it should be rejected in any case, which will not violate the words given to them, will not commit a unworthy act. And even what he is aware of his dignity and will not drop it for the sake of an excess Chervonz or another other benefit.

They inspired us and the concept - conscience. It was believed that a person who lost conscience ceases to be a man. Conscience is needed at work, among comrades and in the family. High rating was the expression: "He is a conscientious person." The conscience was not separated from the concept of honor. Love for the land, to work and to the collective farmers and disgraced the one who came with their conscience, exchanged his dignity for material benefits.

The first sowing thirtieth year and subsequent works in the collective farm were held together. The collective farmers worked well and thirty-first year. The construction of collective farm yards was the rapid pace, a new, although equestrian, technique was acquired; Senakers, headers, strawzer, etc. But 1931 and winter in the 1932 year were very heavy. From the first day of collectivization, a new first commandment appeared: bread, milk, potatoes by the state - Mr. City, as the collective farmers joked. The collective farm and collective farmers were sidewrn with various taxes: both from a collective farm, and from a private courtyard, and from cows. The first commandment brought to the absurdity, everything was confused. It began to pump out from a collective farm (to perform the plan of the first five-year plan) of milk, bread, potatoes - everything is cleaned. I did not pass - the enemy of the people, against said - again the enemy. In the thirties in the north of his bread only enough before Christmas, and then the latter was also taken out, including the Insurance Fund. As soon as the seeds saved. Flour to the store did not bring. Almost nothing was given to the workload (everyone was taken to the city). You could buy bread in Torgsin on gold, but there was no gold from the peasants. True, Peter's wedding rings. Started

hunger, although not so strong, as in the south of Russia and Ukraine, but still without death from hunger and we cost. Ukrainian often came to my mother (Khorshukhushka - so my mother is her best), the wife of the smoked and expelled to us with two children of school age. Her husband worked on logging. This woman with my mother collected mushrooms, berries, and most importantly, Moss Yagel and studied at Anna Fedorovna to prepare food from them. And now Ukrainian big Secret Mother told about the received letter from her village, in which it was reported that Polewenah died of hunger. She said that they were very happy and glad that they were sent here to the north, where they are very good attitude of local residents. Children learn, the husband earns well. There, their Chairman of the village council was planted for five years to hide wheat seeds. This is what they splashed. The men left in Kharkov, but many and there were silent from hunger. She very much asked her mother to speak about it to anyone and did not give it. It was forbidden to talk about hunger and all the more to write, and she was afraid that she was put in prison for these conversations. And not without reason.

Since the autumn of 1932, physically strong, having any skill of men and young girls in the city for earnings went from Ichkov and Stupin. The collective farmers began to shy away from collective farm work, as they almost did not receive anything on the workday. The collective farm of youth - Komsomolia, who worked in collective farm.

Appeared in our village disorder. In the fall of the thirty-second year, the farmers cut off the spikelets, during the gulls of the collective farmers carried the grain with currents in his pockets, for the sinus to cook porridge from this grain. Tired potatoes, mushrooms, and cloudberry, wanted and porridge, so as not to fall on the go.

On August 7, 1932, a terrible cruel law on the protection of socialist property was announced. This law was called in the village "Law of five spikelets". For these spikes gave 10 years in prison. She went ramped arrests without any reason. People collective farm covered fear. In winter, in 1933, the situation began to improve, hunger sank. We fed to potatoes, the best in Russia, various herbs, and most importantly, the "Moss Yagel", mushrooms and berries. Survived the collective farmers Ichkova. Salad collective farm. He continued the collective farm to hand over his milk to the state to a drop at very low prices. It was equivalent to the tax annually. At the same time, the harvesting of milk, potatoes were mandatory.

In the Soviet Union since 1929, the construction of machinery and tractor stations (MTS), servicing collective farms based on contractual relations, was launched. From the mid-thirties and in our area created MTS serving all collective farms of the district. Initially, the chairman began to refuse MTS services, stating that we will do everything. He was corrected, he realized his mistake.

The machine-tractor station organized in the holkemogors, supplied with tractors with all auxiliary equipment and repair workshops for servicing under certain conditions of adjacent collective farms, played a huge role in the conversion of agriculture at a collective basis, including a certain positive role in strengthening the collective farm " New life". MTS existed until 1958, its service contributed to the completion of the collectivization of peasant farms and the growth of collective farm revenues and appropriate payment for workday. The chairman of the collective farm thoroughly knew the relationship with MTS and did not allow the farm. Very carefully applied to the instructions from the district center, which began to draw, as from the horns of abundance. Horses in the collective farm had in the required quantity and always well contained them.

On horses in the collective farm, all works were performed: Patheli, Boroni, delivered a harvest from the field, firewood from the forest, brought the grain to the mill, and milk to the mill. The first agricultural machines were worked on horse rods: Senakers, headers, thumps and others. Later, with the advent of MTS tractors, the horses became an assistant to a tractor and a car, and in the winter again indispensable in hay, firewood from the forest and perform a variety of necessary work on farms, logging and household sections. According to the worst roads on horseback, they traveled to Holmogor, Arkhangelsk and even to Moscow.

The horse in the north was needed in the three years, is needed now, and I am convinced that it will always be necessary.

Trucks, carriages, brights, wagons, sled and woodcuts - all made craftsmen-collective farmers. And the arcs were gone, but the bells pensive bought.

For a wooden, in general, the carts required a lot of metal parts: axes, bushings, tires, etc. These details made a wonderful master Kudryavin Mikhail Yakovlev in collective farm villager. He himself came up with different riblues, mandrels, templates that facilitate the hard work of the blacksmith and allowed to save metal. Brothers Stepan and Vasily Rasputin, Jacob Aleksandrovich Abakumov did a poloz. Moli constructed the machine to get bending. They made woodcuts, sinking and other wagons for the carriage of goods and people in winter and, mainly, for exporting wood on logging.

With the adoption of an exemplary charter of agricultural artel (on 2 - m to the All-Union Congress of Kolkhoznikov-Drummer, February 1935) Fully the collective farm system in our country. The charter determined the main principles of the organization of production and distribution in collective farms. The charter was guaranteed a personal subsidiary farm of the collective farmers, which had a positive effect on a collective farm life. In the collective farm "New Life" significantly increased livestock in personal use. In the collective farm "New Life" strictly respected by the requirements of the charter of agriculture. The election audit commission who worked in the collective farm announced the results of inspections at the general meetings of the collective farmers. The general meetings of the collective farmers were going regularly, and in the work of assembly participated, as a rule, most of the collective farmers.

The chairman and young collective farmers loved the equipment and mechanization of agricultural workers. On this basis, the chairman did not come under the court. Forestry in the forest threw a caterpillar tractor with faults. The collective farm craftsmen repaired and drove the tractor in the collective farm and stealing on it, hay and the forest to carry, performing the work that MTS should perform. The collective farm is a big benefit, but for MTS damages. The investigation began, the tractor was taken away, and the Chairman defended the partyganization and the district party, but they punished the party line for the underestimation of MTS and the acquisition of the tractor in violation of the provisions that existed then. Large income was deprived of collective farmers. In fact, the members of Arteel considered their chairman independent and trusted him completely. The initiative, the foresight of somewhat lay downward was also inherent in the chairman, and the assets of the collective farm. I did not tolerate the chairman of the intervention in the business of the collective farm of the various authorized, but everything was done correctly, so as not to offend the district bosses. In total, which it was necessary to achieve in the area, regions, the chairman sought.

Board, chairman and specialists of a collective farm with brigadiers and links studied agronomy and the experience of peasants who lived on these lands of the century. Solid and purposeful leadership, master's hand liked collective farmers, and especially what all major events were held after the Council with an asset, with a general meeting. It turned out that everyone was responsible for the made, and less errors were. The collective farmhouse went ahead every year. But here it was not without trouble.

In the villages of the Copachevsky village council, two collective farms were organized - Ichkovo-Stupinsky - "New Life" on the right and Kopachevo-Krivetsky - "Red North" on the left bank of the Northern Dvina. The collective farm "New Life" worked and lived better.

The regional leadership imposed an association with the collective farm "Red North", assuming the company to fix a lagging farm. But the practice has shown the fallacy of this decision. The combination of two collective farms that occupied a huge territory, divided by the Northern Dvina, did not give positive results, harm to the collective farm "New Life" was harmful, and they were again disconnected. Already the sixth dozen live and work these two neighboring collective farm, coming among themselves. The collective farm "New Life" was headed by A.P. Vashukov for more than 30 years.

The correct organization of work in the collective farm, strictly compliance with the charter of C / Hosharkers, of course, gave positive results. It should be noted that in the collective farm "New Life" there was an orientation for dairy livestock from the first years. At the same time, the Board and Zootachnik introduced the rule: not to increase the flock of cows, but to increase the production of feed so that the cows were always as followed by the rations developed by zootechnics. The implementation of this rule led to a significant increase in milk. The collective farm was generally common in the main cow of the Kholmogorsk breed, but not all. A complex process of bringing the entire livestock to a single purebred holmogor breed, well adapted to local conditions. There was very successfully genetic improvement of livestock. There were excellent tribal bulls - manufacturers, from which seed collection for artificial insemination and long-term storage of seeds, followed by sending it to an artificial insemination station. Estimated manufacturers by their offspring, on the productivity of the daughters of the bull. So it was created in 1934 a small laboratory of tribal business.

Thanks to the tireless work of the Farcavtsevaya and Co-Rotkova Zootekhnikov at the proper level, the selection work was, the scientific basis was carried out for feeding cows and calves, a clear-seeking female of the recorder cows was organized. Already by 1934, all the cows of the collective farm were purebred "Holmogorki". Nadodi exceeded five thousand liters on the fodder cow. One of the cows-recorders for the period of lactation was given over 10 thousand kilograms of milk. These achievements were the merits of the milk of Lisa Abakumova (Vashkova), Novotechnik Doni Karkavtsevaya, who conducted targeted breeding work, as well as harmonized and other employees of the brigade of livestock breeders.

Huge opportunities were buried in the Kholmogorsk breed of livestock, spreading then throughout Russia. The collective farm "New Life" on the Nadois of Milk and the growth of young people came out in the first place in the area. This is what was recorded in the revocation about the work of the crigade of the livestock breeders: "... a livestock brigade consisted of 37 people and served 263 heads of cattle. According to the results of the socialist competition in 1933 and 1934, a brigade of livestock breeders occupied the first place in the area for the fodder milk. Cow and second - in the content of young. " The brigadier of the livestock breeders for the high rates achieved by the brigade and the public work was awarded the title of Stalin's striker with a record of Stalin's drummers in the regional Red Book, January 22, 1934. Many members of the Brigade and Zootachnik received various premiums. Neither the lung frosts and blizzards, nor the spring and autumn dishthele disappeared the work of MTF. The collective of livestock breeders provided the uninterrupted work of the farm. Nadies of milk and the bridges of young not only were stable, but from year to year rose, there was a great merit and field brigades that provided the farm of good quality with hay and silage in the required quantity. No matter how hard the livestock breeding workers were, but the labor of milking, cocity, zootechnic, veterinarian and a groom at that time was honorable, speaking modern tongue, prestigious, and this prestige was supported and raised all the leaders. There has always been the problem of feed. However, with great difficulty, but it was solved. The fields were seeded with a clover, a virus mixture with Timofeevka, they grown Tourneps and a good silage from various herbs were harvested. Invisen the contract for the contracting of young people. Bychkov under contraction contracts were exported to the state farms and collective farms of the country. For the bulls surrendered gave meals and bran.

The sprouts of the new in the life and the life of the collective farmers appeared. In 1934 there were the first subscriptions of catering. Preparing dinners for workers in hay and harvest. The first children's nurseries appeared, although they brought some children a little, since the grandmothers cared for grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Young man, first chairman of the collective farm Andrei Petro

hIV, of course, did not know that Marx wrote in the "capital", but he knew little and what was said at V.I. Lenin on how to keep socialist economy in the north. To us, students of the Northern Territory Supreme Communist Agricultural School, at lectures and seminars on the organization of C / Hozp production in 1935-1936. Already began to bring from the "capital" of excerpts on the management of the farms of the northern regions of Russia, and from the works of V.I. Lenin - how to build an economy after the victory of the Great October. For example, such entries are preserved in the abstracts from the "capital" of Marx: "... the more unfavorable climate, the shorter the working period in agriculture, the shorter, therefore, the time during which capital and labor is spent. For example, Russia. There, in some northern areas, field work is possible only within 130-150 days a year. It is easy to imagine what loss it would be for Russia if 50 of 65 million of the population 98 of the European part remained without classes for six or eight winter monthsWhen all sorts of field work should stop ...

There are villages where all peasants from generation to generation are weaver, tanners, shoemakers, locksmiths, but cheworing, etc.; In particular, this is observed in the provinces of Moscow, Vladimir, Kaluga, Kostroma and St. Petersburg. "

These words of Marx are fully valid for the Northern Territory, which then included Arkhangelsk and Vologda region. In these areas, not only land was also engaged. In each village there were dozens of craftsmen, as well as "St. Petersburg" and other peculiarniks who did not break down from the earth.

With the organization of a collective farm in Ichkov, there were immediate conversion in production. Many peasants who worked in Leningrad and Arkhangelsk, broke out of the ground and became workers. Some have become collective farmers, breaking with the city. But there was a minority. In the collective farm immediately stated a certain part of the collective farmers, continuously operating in the economy. These are animals, builders, specialists (shoemaker, sanitor, blacksmith and managerial apparatus). The second - working on Earth during the field work and released most of its work in winter. For men and a small part of women, the main work in the winter was working on logging, that is, employment was actually ensured all year round. But the work of working on logging was very heavy, therefore, the collective farmers were followed, first of all those who worked in the winter in the forest, they went to the city and in Lespromkhozia. Measures of the holding of collective farmers were even such extreme, as a non-tech birth certificate, so as not to receive a passport.

The energy, perseverance of the Board, the Chairman and the Assistance of the Parthoreganization and Raythoma allowed to keep the majority of people in the collective farm from the care of the city, where workers were required in an unlimited quantity due to the rapid development of industry in Arkhangelsk, Leningrad and other cities.

In many ways to strengthen the collective farm, the entrepreneuriousness of the chairman was helped, the ability to consider collective farm money and skillfully spending them. From the first days he began to build an economy on commercial calculation. I sought everything that the collective farm can assist. Now, appreciating the work of the first chairman of the collective farm, you can be confident in his correct approach. He apparently knew the indication of V.I. Lenin that "we should not alien to commercial calculation ... Only on this basis of commercial calculations can be built the economy" (V.I. Lenin, October 1921, a report on the Moscow provincial party conference).

In the view of the chair, everything was simple: it is advantageous to the state and collective farmers, it means well. He considered everything, everyone took into account, achieving revenues in the farm. His dream is to have the highest swords of milk, the best bridges of young, the best horses, getting more income from the ground to have more income in the farm, and work truss to make weighty and kind, and the ruble.

His collective farmers were supported, because they received more and more on the workday every year, besides more than in neighboring farms. Andrei Petrovich to some extent painfully perceived someone else's superiority. Achievements in the collective farm were felt for the fourth year, when the collective farm took one of the first places in the area of \u200b\u200bthe milk and the growth of young people. If I do not change my memory, 2 kg of grain and 2 R.30 kopeck were obtained. on workday. It was a very big achievement of a collective farm. The collective farmers understood that it all depends on their labor. After all, then no guaranteed payment, as now, was not.

From the first days of its existence, the collective farm was a self-singing farm, but otherwise no one then did not understand. There was no idea to be a chopper from the state, and debts, they say, still wriggle. The main income of the collective farm was from a dairy farm (MTF). There was no indifference of collective farmers to work. Everyone was striving to work on the farm all year round. Against the indifferent attitude towards work, the party and Komsomol cells, the board of the collective farm and the chairman himself were fighting. For good work was honorable and respect. Everyone knew about good people. In the foreground there were simple farm workers: milking and veyr. The best of them was written in the wall and district newspapers and even in the regional - "truth of the north". They spoke about the best people of the collective farm at the meetings of the Board and general meetings. Although rarely, but also boned the best collective farmers in small valuable gifts. For the ITF, the chairman was calm. Livestock brigades, which consisted mainly of young people, worked with a light, gambling. Successfully on dobry brigadiers of livestock breeders rallied around themselves MTF workers due to a clear account of the brigade made by each member.

The Board and Chairman of the collective farm were of particular importance to personal contact with collective farmers. Meetings in a livestock brigade on the summary of the socialist competition were carried out by all the Board with the involvement of the zootechnic, a branch, a collective farm accountant and the headquarters. This meeting is captured in the photo in 1934. The relationship between the members of the brigade was permeated by the spirit of the partnership, the generality of interest, and the chinopping despised.

In my memory, Andrei Petrovich remained brightly in five years of work in the collective farm under his leadership. I am talking about him as he remembered. Little, persistent and reliable. He was the true owner and together with the party and the Komsomol cells brought up this feeling of each collective farmer. In the collective farm "New Life" everything was created by collective farmers, true owners, their mind and effort. Everyone was interested, as they say, in the end result of their work, and then they said easier that we would get in the fall on the workday. Everyone was reasonable and knew everyday about the progress of affairs in the economy. The collective opinion was manifested most of all in the teams, where they were judged by the work of everyone and the trial of the trial. The chairman was active, gustful, invested, and then it seemed to me that he did not like Pokhalimov, was accurate in handling relatives, i.e. Relatives did not exalted, did not put forward, and kept with everyone on an equal footing. Yet it should be noted that he was domineering and even sharp. I looked at the interlocutor in the focus. He was even called "white-eyed" for his bright eyebrows and blue eyes, which he looked into the eyes of the interlocutor. He did not drink vodka organized a rigid struggle with those who purchased a "minor" in the shop (quarter of vodka) in the worktime. Delivered to such people from the chairman. Many were even indignant: "And where he knows who and when I bought a" closer "- the Quarter and the whole thing he is." So it was, Andrei Petrovich checked everything, sought to know more about each, as his own family member.

The collective farms (collective farms, agricultural artel), in the USSR, large semi-state agricultural enterprises, in which the work of the peasants and all the fixed assets of production (inventory, economic buildings, commodity and working cattle, etc.); The land occupied by the collective farm was state ownership, fixed the collective farm in the indefinite (eternal) use. Created mainly in 1929-37 in the process of collectivization of individual peasant farms in order to establish state control over the production and distribution of agricultural products, the replacement of natural and small-handed structures by large selling commodity production of agricultural products. Along with the state farms remained the main form of agricultural production in the socialist economy. In 1917-29, the term "collective farm" was often used in relation to any form of collective economy - communas of agricultural, partnerships for the joint processing of land, agricultural, fishing, hunting and other artels.

The main form of collective farms by Decree of the Central Committee of the CSP (b) "On the pace of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction" (January 1930) was recognized as an agricultural artel with a high degree of socializing and means of production, which actually excluded the possibility of voluntary association of commodity farms (as opposed to cooperatives based on a voluntary combination of production, sales or credit operations). With the creation of collective farms in the personal property of the peasants, residential and economic buildings were left in the peasant yard, a small inventory, cattle in the quantity provided for by the approximate charter of agricultural artel (adopted in March 1930, in the new edition - in February 1935), and in use - a small household plot Earth for conducting personal subsidiary farm. The collective farms were taken by peasants from the age of 16, except for those who were counted to the cams, as well as persons who did not have election rights (an exception under certain conditions could be made for their children).

The usual collective farm of the early 1930s was an enterprise organized on the basis of inventory and horses of peasants, which, as a rule, covered one village and had an average arable area of \u200b\u200babout 400 hectares. The main form of organization of labor in the collective farm was the permanent production team - a collective of collective farmers, for which the land plot and the necessary means of production were fixed for a long time. The mechanized processing of the Earth in the collective farm was carried out with the help of state-owned enterprises - machine-tractor stations (MTS; created from 1929). Formally the highest gathering body in the collective farm was the general meeting of the collective farmers, which was elected chairman, the Board and the Audit Commission. In fact, all important decisions were taken under the rigid administrative pressure and control of party and state bodies. People were elected to the position of chairman of the collective farm, people on the recommendation or on direct instructions of the district schools were elected, often urban residents who have little understood in agricultural production. With the introduction of the passport system in the USSR (Decree of the CEC and SCA of the USSR dated December 27, 1932), the collective farmers were excluded from among those who received passports, which made their free movement and employment outside the collective farm.

The relationship between collective farms with the state was originally built on the basis of contractual contracts. The dimensions of the bosses were determined by the state plan, which was compiled in the summer in accordance with the types of crop and often changed towards the increase. In January 1933, the obligatory, which had the power of the tax, the supply of collective farms of the state (billet) of grain, rice, sunflower, potatoes, meat, milk, wool, as well as the impression (since 1936 - income). Not a barn crop, but biological (was 20-30% higher than the actual runs). State procurement prices, as a rule, did not exceed the cost of collective farm. The remaining of the obligatory supply of basic products or some secondary types of agricultural products (fluff, feather, bristles, etc.) The collective farms could sell the state on solid (higher than the procurement) prices. The sale of agricultural products to the state was encouraged by the provision of collective farm and collective farmers of the right to buy scarce industrial products at procurement fund prices. Another channel of the redistribution of agricultural products in favor of the state was the duty of collective farms to pay for the work of MTS by grain, as the number of MTS increases, the amount of payment grew (by 1937 - about 1/3 of the harvest).

Between members of the collective farm, products were distributed through standards based on the residual principle: after the calculation with the state on the billets, the return of seed loans, payments of MTS, the renewal of seed and foded funds and the sale of part of the products to the state or in the collective farm market. By the same principle, the money income of the collective farm was distributed. The average payment of the collective farm workforce was up to the mid-1950s about 36% of the average day payment of an industrial worker, and the annual earnings were 3 times less than in the state farms, and 4 times less than in industry.

Most of the food products consumed by the collective farmers themselves, with the exception of bread, they gave personal homesteads (became the only source of products for the peasants in cripples, when the workload was practically not paid). A part of the livestock production produced in them came to the State Fund through natural agricultural taxes and fees or was implemented by peasants in the market. Therefore, the state, on the one hand, was interested in the development of household farms, on the other hand, was afraid of this development, seeing in household farms a threat to the revival of private property and the main reason for the distraction of peasants from work in collective farms. Decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) and SCC of the USSR "On measures for the protection of public land of collective farms from diluting" and "On events in the development of public animal husbandry in collective farms" (both 1939), it was prescribed to cut off from the household plots of "surplus" in excess of established norms (in the same year 2.5 million hectares of land were cut off) and the withdrawal from the collective farmers "extra" livestock was activated. An effective form of limiting the size of personal household farms was taxation.

The Great Patriotic War inflicted a heavy blow to collective farms. Sowing Squares in 1941-1945 decreased by 20%, and the security of collective farms was decreased by the main production facilities to a quarter. The livestock livestock was less than 80% of the pre-war, pigs are about half. Women and adolescents became the main working force in collective farms. To help collective farmers for harvesting began to send brigades formed from urban residents. Despite the departure of most of the male population of collective farms on the front, the difficulties of wartime, the decline in gross garbage and loss of bread areas engaged in German troops, the collective farms in 1941-44 were prepared about 70 million tons of grain (in the 1st world War About 23 million tons were purchased and purchased).

In the late 1940s - early 1950s, thanks to the implementation of large-scale government programs aimed at strengthening the material and technical base and improving the organization of a collective farm, agricultural production was restored. In 1952, it accounted for 101% to the level of 1940. However, the rural economy has not yet recovered from the damage caused by the war and the mobilization activities of the state in the first post-war years. The crown of 1953 and the threat of a new hunger forced the Government to cover the food needs to disperse a significant part of the state reserve.

After the death of I. V. Stalin in 1953 and the abolition of repressive measures aimed at coating the peasants to work, the new Soviet leadership on the initiative of the chairman of the USSR of the USSR G. M. Malenkov made an attempt to overcome the crisis of agricultural production to increase the interest of collective farmers in the results of their labor by weakening Press on collective farms, strengthening their economic independence, support for household farms. In September 1953, the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee for the first time raised the question of the need to improve the standard of living of collective farmers, called on local authorities to terminate the practice of infringement of their interests regarding the subsidiary farm. From the farms of the collective farmers, all arrears were written off at the obligatory supply of livestock products to the state. The norms of state supplies of agricultural products were significantly reduced, stockpiling and purchasing prices were significantly increased. Instead of income tax with personal household farms, as a result of which the most devoted peasants were at a loss, a tax from the area of \u200b\u200bthe household land was introduced regardless of the size of the total income. The taxes were reduced in 1953 by 50% and in 1954 by 30% from farms that did not have cows. At the same time, for families of collective farmers, in which individual members did not work out in the expired year of the established minimum workday, the tax increased halfway. The decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the SM of the USSR "On the change in the practice of agricultural planning" (9.3.1955) obliging local authorities to bring only general indicators for the volume of workpieces to collect farms, the collective farms received the right to carry out specific production planning at their discretion. The new charter of the Selhers 1956 provided collective farms the right to determine the size of the peasants' subsidence itself, the number of livestock, which was in personal property, set the minimum of workformes, make changes to the charter of the Selcoarters in relation to local conditions. The collective farms introduced monthly advancement of labor and the form of monetary payment on differentiated rates. In the summer of 1957, the Central Committee of the CPSU and the SM of the USSR adopted a joint decree "On the cancellation of mandatory supply of agricultural products to the state of farms of collective farmers, workers and employees" (entered into force on January 1, 1958). The supply of agricultural products began to be carried out in the form of public procurement on the basis of long-term plans with the distribution of planned tasks by year. There was an extradition of interest-free cash advances. At the same time, the leaders of the state and the CPSU, mainly N. S. Khrushchev (continued to reform agriculture after the liberation of Malenkov from the post of Chairman, see in January 1955), made a bet on achieving a sharp rise in agriculture by creating large farms and expansion of production: the grain - at the expense of Tseviation lands (since 1954), animal breeding - due to the widespread spread of sowing feed corn (from 1955). The consolidation of collective farms and their transformation into state farms were accompanied by the centralization of the leadership, agrotechnical, engineering services, the construction of the central estates; Hundreds of thousands of villages were announced by "non-prospective". The collective farms were sold to agricultural machinery of abolished MTS (according to the law "On the further strengthening of the collective farm system and the reorganization of machine-tractor stations" from 31.3.1958). This justified, but hasty and poorly prepared measure led to exorbitant financial costs, undermine the repair base of collective farms, mass "leakage" of the mechanisters from the village.

"Field work is not waiting!". Poster. Artist V. I. Sovkov. 1954.

In 1953-58, agricultural gross products increased almost 1.5 times, animal-producer - twice, the volume of commercial agricultural products increased by 1.8 times (in 1953-1958, cash and natural income of collective farmers increased 1.6 times, issuance of money on Working increased threefold), however, in 1959 a fall in the collection of grain, including on virgin lands, began. The consumption of grain for the first time exceeded state billets (in 1963 the leadership was forced to buy it abroad, such a practice adopted a systematic character). To perform overestimated plans for meat and dairy products (in 1957, the task is to catch up in the next 3-4 years of the USA for the production of meat, oil and milk per capita), the collective farms began to resort to the attributes, as well as the violent redemption of cows from the peasants, threatening not to allocate Feed and pasture. In turn, the peasants began to cut cattle. The stern problem was aggravated: "Corn campaign" failed (carried out everywhere, including in climate unsuitable zones), and traditional perennial feed herbs were perepakhan. In 1956-60, livestock livestock in personal household farms declined markedly (from 35.3% with respect to the total livestock of productive livestock in the country to 23.3%), in collective farms - slightly increased (from 45.7% to 49.8% ). Buying equipment at MTS (often forcibly), collective farms fell into debts. All this led to a deterioration in the food situation in the country. In 1961, a serious shortage of meat, milk, oil, bread appeared in the USSR. Trying to solve the food problem, the government in 1962 increased the purchase prices for meat and the bird, on average by 35% and, accordingly, increased retail prices for meat and making products by 25-30%, which led to unrest in a number of cities, including Novocherkassk (see Novocherkasy events 1962).

It took measures aimed at the intensification of agricultural production on the basis of the widespread use of fertilizers, the development of irrigation, integrated mechanization and the introduction of the achievements of science and best practices for the faster increase in agricultural production. They were given serious attention at the Plenums of the Central Committee (in December 1963, February 1964, March 1965). From the mid-1960s, attempted to increase the productivity of collective farm production by enhancing the material interest of collective farmers and expanding the economic independence of collective farms. The plan for mandatory procurement of grain was reduced and declared unchanged for the coming 10 years. Purchasing prices for agricultural products are elevated by 1.5-2 times. 50% surcharges for superplanted products were envisaged, prices for equipment and spare parts were reduced. All debts wrote off from collective farms. The number of reporting indicators descended from above was reduced. The collective farms were given law independent planning within government assignments. This led to an increase in the production of agricultural products and had a positive effect on the trade of collective farm markets. The price of meat, dairy products, vegetables, fruits increased, prices have declined noticeably. In 1964, the collective farmers received the right to state pension in old age (men in 65 years old, women in 60 years), disability and in the case of the loss of the breadwinner. In accordance with the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the SM of the USSR from 16.5.1966 "On increasing the material interest of collective farmers in the development of social production" the collective farms began to move to a guaranteed monthly labor payment, based on tariff rates of the relevant categories of employees of state farms (in 1969, more than 95% of the collective farms passed) . To ensure a guarantee of remuneration, the State Bank was allowed to provide loans (with a lack of own funds from collective farms) for a period of 5 years with the beginning of their repayment after 3 years. The new approximate charter (1969) provided for the establishment of a normized working day in collective farms, the introduction of paid leaves, disability benefits and other measures to expand the rights of collective farmers. The terms of agricultural work were optimized, the supply of mineral fertilizers increased dramatically. However, as a whole, the reforms of the 1960s did not lead to an expected increase in the efficiency of the collective farm system, since the remuneration of collective farmers was not associated with an increase in the volume of agricultural products and a decrease in its cost.

In an effort to stimulate the productivity of the Labor of the collective farmers, the state in the late 1970s began to encourage a collective in a row, the creation of groups of intensive technologies in which labor payment depended on the final result. Since 1976, in accordance with the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the SM of the USSR "On measures to further improve the passport system in the USSR" (1974), collective farmers, as well as all Soviet citizens, issued passports (with 1959 collective farmers who left for work in the city, issued temporary passports) . The steady increase in state investment in the development of collective farms and agriculture in general (3.5 billion rubles in the mid-1960s, 55 billion rubles in the mid-1980s) was accompanied by a decrease in returns from them. Cash and the equipment supplied to the village were used in the form of indivisible funds, economically not related to the material interests of collective farmers. And the extension of financing volumes was accompanied by the strengthening of centralization and, as a result, the bureaucratization in the field of regulation of agricultural production. The annual growth rates of agricultural products gradually decreased: 4.3% in 1966-70, 2.9% in 1971-75, 1.8% in 1976-80, 1.1% in 1981-85. By 1980, the level of profitability in collective farms was 0.4%, production 7 of 13 main types of agricultural products was unprofitable. Annual attraction of labor from cities to help collect farms helped harvesting, but could not bring a collective farm system from the crisis. Food program 1982 provided for the improvement of the agricultural sector based on the industrial modernization of agricultural production, but did not imply the qualitative transformation of the collective farm-provisional system. Therefore, she had only a temporary effect due to major financial injections in the agro-industrial complex.

In the 2nd half of the 1980s, a course was taken on the large-scale and widespread introduction of a collective, family and individual rental contract, however, the project of the village went too far and these measures did not help. In the implementation of radical market reforms of the 1990s, the cost of agricultural equipment, fuel, electricity was constantly grew, the price of finished products of collective farms fell; In connection with the government's course on the development of farms, state support for collective farms has ceased. In the early 1990s, many collective farms and state farms were reorganized into mutual partnerships (joint-stock companies) with full or limited liability, some of them broke up, 2.9 thousand (8.8% of all agricultural enterprises) were transformed into agricultural cooperatives with the conservation of the name "Collectoz".

Sunday: Documents testify. From the history of the village on the eve and during the collectivization of 1927-1932 M., 1996; Tragedy of the Soviet village. Collectivization and disposal. 1927-1939: Documents and materials. M., 1999-2006. T. 1-5.

Lit.: Revenge V. G. Kolkhoznya building at the present stage. M., 1966; Zelenin I. E. Agrarian policy N. S. Khrushchev and agriculture. M., 2001; Rogalina N. L. Colhomas in the system of state socialism in the USSR (1930s - 1970s) // Economic history. Yearbook. 2003. M., 2004.

nazar_rus. And history_aktobe. I will issue a separate question of whether the economic foundation existed for the organization of collective farms in the form of artels.

Here is the opinion of the distinguished History_aktobe:

After all, almost nowhere was the most important - economic prerequisites for the creation of a collective farm. Not in the country, namely in every particular settlement (paragraphs). Position in the country, political will and everything else - it was. But this is generally. And life consists of everyday private. It seems to me that this is obvious.
If there are no barns, there is no feed, the process of milking, feeding, calving, and other things is not debugged, then collect all cattle from the courtyards means one thing - doomed on a very big case. Even if you do not take into account direct opposition, sabotage, stupidity and self-use. Well, and so on.

To create a specific collective farm in each particular settlement there was nothing
Decide on a piece of paper, and then collect all the cattle and other property from the courtyards, output what is called, in a clean field is not an economic basis for creating a collective farm. Similarly, in general, both with the Earth. And in the absence of in the first years of the collectivization of tractors and other mechanization, the loss of even parts of the working cattle and part of the other led to very bad consequences.
The margin of safety of the peasantry is very small, even at current times. In the Russian Empire for the 19th-beginning of the 20th century, hungry years were many times when the masses of people were dying. It is only from the lowland, bad weather conditions.
And in collectivization to this, the coalded socialization of everything and everything was added.
And where, in in this case, the economic foundations for the creation of a collective farm in dozens and hundreds of thousands of villagers? What are they hiding?.

Intervened dear nazar_rus. :

"... creating a particular collective farm in each particular settlement was nothing ..." - what was not? Earth? Of people? Is it really nothing at all? ;-)
"... collect all the cattle and other property from the courtyards, to bring out what is called, in a clean field ..." - this is called "wound", for which the article was hung. And what does the depression towards the organization of collective farms?
"... the reachable socialization of everything and everyone ..." - Well, why is the coachable? Everything was regulated. And juncocks on the ground is already the right question, a separate question.
"... what did they hide? .." - how in what? In the publicity of the means of production. And on the ground, each economy itself should decide what and how specifically it will be done.
You are sorry, direct crimes and mismanagement (also a crime for those standards) in the fields are issued for the mythical lack of economic foundations.

history_Aktobe.

About economic basis. Support so.
1. Cold Tznes in the village. The season rolled up how to work collectively.
2. Was all world to promote their working and productive cattle. But to keep it somewhere, they built a couple of barn for the season and a pair of stables based on the amount of livestock and the rating for the next season. Made.
3.Dell, how to be with the feeds for the coat of livestock - blank and storage. Decided - carried out the planned.
4. Affairs and decided that it was necessary to do for the generalized workers of labor, mangown and other things. Where to store how to use, etc.
5. Affairs and solved questions related to the seed foundation - where to take where and how to store, etc.
Well, further, other urgent things.
It was all this? No, nothing, unfortunately, from a large list of economically necessary for collective management was not prepared. Simply say, there was no prepared economic and production base.
We walked, we were generally, and the peasants themselves dragged everything that they said. In fact, on an empty place. Where the local government said.

I will express my opinion.

The presence of a barrier, stables, barn can not be considered the necessary economic basis for creating a collective farm. These are the simplest facilities, in temporaryly enough form are erected together in a matter of days.

The economic basis of the organization of collective farms served:

1) Public property to Earth. There was no need to mess around with each private owner who did not want to join the collective farm and the land plots of which would be crushing a single array of collective farm land. The state highlighted land collective farms with a whole piece, and the soles took the land aside.

Already one set the collective farm in a more favorable position - it was possible to use agricultural engineering, inaccessible for small sole farms.

2) combining means of production. The mass of peasant farms that have no one or another means of production (horse, plow, threshing, etc.), and not providing an independent production unit, a productive sufficiency has acquired in the collective farm.

3) Expropriation of Kulatsky farms provided collective farms with additional inventors, often very weighty.

4) Special state programs of tax benefits, lending, loans, etc.

5) Combining the workforce immediately allowed to introduce specialization and free up working hands for additional tasks within the village itself.

6) even previous points It is shown that the very first non-mechanized collective farms had favorable economic foundations for successful development, but the organization next to the MTS collective farm put the agricultural production in principle to another level of opportunity.

As for the stables unpresherized in the time, then the reason for this is not the obstacle of some economic foundations, but in the banal reluctance of the peasants of a particular collective farm.

Publications on the topic