Remarks on Frank's work on collectivization 1. The work is very interesting, contains many valuable thoughts, some chapters and parts of chapters are well developed theoretically. The work is also successful in literary terms.2. Politically, work is very much like trying

The highest and most characteristic feature of our people is a sense of justice and a thirst for it.

F. M. Dostoevsky

In December 1927, the collectivization of agriculture began in the USSR. This policy was aimed at creating collective farms throughout the country, which were to include individual private owners of land plots. The implementation of collectivization plans was entrusted to the activists of the revolutionary movement, as well as the so-called twenty-five thousand people. All this led to the strengthening of the role of the state in the agricultural and labor sectors in the Soviet Union. The country managed to overcome the "devastation" and carry out the industrialization of industry. On the other hand, this led to mass repressions and the famous famine of 32-33.

Reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization

The collectivization of agriculture was conceived by Stalin as a last resort, with the help of which it was possible to solve the vast majority of the problems that at that time became obvious to the leadership of the Union. Highlighting the main reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization, the following can be distinguished:

• Crisis of 1927. Revolution, civil war and confusion in the leadership led to the fact that in 1927 a record low crop was harvested in the agricultural sector. This was a strong blow for the new Soviet power, as well as for its foreign economic activity.
• The liquidation of the kulaks. The young Soviet government still saw counter-revolution and supporters of the imperial regime at every turn. That is why the dispossession policy was massively continued.
• Centralized management of agriculture. The legacy of the Soviet regime was a country where the vast majority of people were engaged in individual agriculture. This situation did not suit the new government, since the state sought to control everything in the country. And it is very difficult to control millions of independent farmers.

Speaking about collectivization, it is necessary to understand that this process was directly related to industrialization. Industrialization is understood as the creation of light and heavy industry, which could provide the Soviet government with everything necessary. These are the so-called five-year plans, where factories, hydroelectric power stations, dams and so on were built throughout the country. All this was extremely important, since during the years of the revolution and the civil war, almost the entire industry of the Russian empire was destroyed.

The problem was that industrialization required a large number of workers, as well as a large amount of money. Money was needed not so much to pay workers, but to purchase equipment. After all, all the equipment was produced abroad, and no equipment was produced domestically.

At the initial stage, the leaders of the Soviet government often said that the Western countries were able to develop their own economy only thanks to their colonies, from which they squeezed all the juice. There were no such colonies in Russia, especially since the Soviet Union did not have them. But according to the plan of the new leadership of the country, collective farms were to become such internal colonies. In fact, this is what happened. Collectivization created collective farms that provided the country with food, free or very cheap labor, as well as labor, with the help of which industrialization took place. It was for these purposes that the course towards the collectivization of agriculture was taken. This course was officially reversed on November 7, 1929, when an article by Stalin entitled "The Year of the Great Break" appeared in the Pravda newspaper. In this article, the Soviet leader spoke of the fact that within a year the country must make a breakthrough from a backward individual imperialist economy to an advanced collective economy. It was in this article that Stalin openly declared that the kulaks as a class should be liquidated in the country.

On January 5, 1930, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks issued a resolution on the pace of collectivization. This resolution spoke of the creation of special regions where the reform of agriculture was to take place first of all and in the shortest possible time. Among the main regions identified for reform were the following:

• North Caucasus, Volga region. Here the deadline for the creation of collective farms was set by the spring of 1931. In fact, the two regions had to pass to collectivization in one year.
• Other grain regions. Any other regions where grain was massively grown were also subject to collectivization, but in the period up to the spring of 1932.
• other regions of the country. The remaining regions, which were less attractive in terms of agriculture, were planned to be attached to collective farms in 5 years.

The problem was that this document clearly regulated which regions to work with and in what time frame the action should be taken. But the same document did not say anything about the ways in which the collectivization of agriculture should be carried out. In fact, local authorities independently began to take measures in order to solve the tasks assigned to them. And practically everyone reduced the solution of this problem to violence. The state said “We must” and turned a blind eye to how this “We must” was implemented ...

Why collectivization was accompanied by dispossession

The solution of the tasks that were set by the country's leadership assumed the presence of two interrelated processes: the formation of collective farms and dispossession. Moreover, the first process was very dependent on the second. Indeed, in order to form a collective farm, it is necessary to give this economic instrument the necessary equipment for work so that the collective farm is economically profitable and can feed itself. The state did not allocate money for this. Therefore, the path that Sharikov liked so much was adopted - to take everything away and divide it up. So they did. All "kulaks" were confiscated property, which was transferred to the collective farms.

But this is not the only reason why collectivization was accompanied by the dispossession of the working class. In fact, at the same time, the leadership of the USSR was solving several problems:

• Collection of free tools, animals and premises for the needs of collective farms.
• The destruction of all who dared to express dissatisfaction with the new government.

The practical implementation of dispossession came down to the fact that the state set the norm for each collective farm. It was necessary to dispossess 5-7 percent of all "private" ones. In practice, the ideological adherents of the new regime in many regions of the country significantly exceeded this figure. As a result, not the established norm, but up to 20% of the population was dispossessed!

Surprisingly, there were absolutely no criteria for defining a "fist". And even today, historians who actively defend collectivization and the Soviet regime cannot clearly say on what principles the definition of the kulak and the working peasant was based. At best, we are told that kulaks were understood as people who had 2 cows or 2 horses on the farm. In practice, practically no one adhered to such criteria, and even a peasant who had nothing behind his soul could be declared a fist. For example, my close friend's great-grandfather was called a "fist" because he had a cow. For this, everything was taken away from him and exiled to Sakhalin. And there are thousands of such cases...

Above we have already spoken about the resolution of January 5, 1930. This ruling is usually cited by many, but most historians forget about the appendix to this document, which gave recommendations on how to deal with fists. It is there that we can find 3 classes of fists:

• Counterrevolutionaries. The paranoid fear of the Soviet government before the counter-revolution brought this category of kulaks to the most dangerous. If a peasant was recognized as a counter-revolutionary, then all his property was confiscated and transferred to collective farms, and the person himself was sent to concentration camps. Collectivization received all his property.
• Wealthy peasants. They also did not stand on ceremony with rich peasants. According to Stalin's plan, the property of such people is also subject to complete confiscation, and the peasants themselves, along with all members of their family, were relocated to remote regions of the country.
• Middle class peasants. The property of such people was also confiscated, and people were sent not to distant regions of the country, but to neighboring regions.

Even here it is clear that the authorities clearly divided the people and the penalties for these people. But the authorities did not indicate at all how to define a counter-revolutionary, how to define a rich peasant or a peasant with an average income. That is why dispossession came down to the fact that those peasants who were objectionable to people with weapons were often called kulaks. This is how collectivization and dispossession took place. The activists of the Soviet movement were given weapons, and they enthusiastically carried the banner of Soviet power. Often, under the banner of this government, and under the guise of collectivization, they simply settled personal scores. For this, a special term was even coined “sub-kulak”. And this category included even poor peasants who had nothing.

As a result, we see that those people who were able to run a profitable individual economy were subjected to mass repression. In fact, these were people who for many years built their economy in such a way that it could make money. These were people who actively worried about the result of their activities. These were people who wanted and knew how to work. And all these people were removed from the village.

It was thanks to dispossession that the Soviet government organized its concentration camps, into which a huge number of people fell. These people were used, as a rule, as free labor. Moreover, this labor was used in the most difficult jobs, in which ordinary citizens did not want to work. These were logging, oil mining, gold mining, coal mining and so on. In fact, political prisoners forged the success of those successes of the Five-Year Plans, about which the Soviet government so proudly reported. But this is a topic for another article. Now it should be noted that dispossession on collective farms was reduced to a manifestation of extreme cruelty, which caused active discontent among the local population. As a result, mass uprisings began to be observed in many regions where collectivization was proceeding at the most active pace. They even used the army to suppress them. It became obvious that the forcible collectivization of agriculture was not giving the necessary success. Moreover, the discontent of the local population began to spread to the army. After all, when an army, instead of war with the enemy, fights with its own population, this greatly undermines its spirit and discipline. It became obvious that it was simply impossible to drive people to collective farms in a short time.

The reasons for the appearance of Stalin's article "Dizziness from success"

The most active regions where mass unrest was observed were the Caucasus, Central Asia and Ukraine. People used both active and passive forms of protest. Active forms were expressed in demonstrations, passive in that people destroyed all their property so that it would not go to the collective farms. And such unrest and discontent among the people managed to "achieve" in just a few months.

Already in March 1930, Stalin realized that his plan had failed. That is why on March 2, 1930, Stalin's article "Dizziness from Success" appeared. The essence of this article was very simple. In it, Joseph Vissarionovich openly shifted all the blame for terror and violence during collectivization and dispossession to local authorities. As a result, an ideal image of the Soviet leader began to take shape, who wishes the people well. To strengthen this image, Stalin allowed everyone to voluntarily leave the collective farms, we note that these organizations cannot be violent.

As a result, a large number of people who were forcibly driven into collective farms voluntarily left them. But it was only one step back to make a powerful leap forward. Already in September 1930, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks condemned local authorities for passive actions in carrying out the collectivization of the agricultural sector. The Party called for active action in order to achieve a powerful entry of people into the collective farms. As a result, in 1931 already 60% of the peasants were on collective farms. In 1934 - 75%.

In fact, "Dizzy with success" was necessary for the Soviet government as a means of influencing its own people. It was necessary to somehow justify those atrocities and the violence that took place inside the country. The leadership of the country could not take the blame, as this would instantly undermine their authority. That is why local authorities were chosen as a target for peasant hatred. And this goal was achieved. The peasants sincerely believed in Stalin's spiritual impulses, as a result of which, after only a few months, they ceased to resist the forcible entry into the collective farm.

The results of the policy of complete collectivization of agriculture

The first results of the policy of complete collectivization were not long in coming. Grain production in the country decreased by 10%, the number of cattle decreased by a third, the number of sheep by 2.5 times. Such figures are observed in all aspects of agricultural activity. In the future, these negative trends were overcome, but at the initial stage, the negative effect was extremely strong. This negative resulted in the well-known famine of 1932-33. Today, this famine is known largely due to the constant complaints of Ukraine, but in fact, many regions of the Soviet Republic suffered greatly from that famine (the Caucasus and especially the Volga region). In total, the events of those years were felt by about 30 million people. According to various sources, from 3 to 5 million people died from hunger. These events were due to both the actions of the Soviet government on collectivization, and a lean year. Despite the weak harvest, almost the entire stock of grain was sold abroad. This sale was necessary in order to continue industrialization. Industrialization was continued, but this continuation cost millions of lives.

The collectivization of agriculture led to the fact that the rich population, the middle-class population, and activists who simply cared for the result completely disappeared from the village. There were people who were forcibly driven into collective farms, and who absolutely did not worry about the final result of their activities. This was due to the fact that the state took away most of what the collective farms produced. As a result, a simple peasant understood that no matter how much he grew up, the state would take almost everything. People understood that even if they grow not a bucket of potatoes, but 10 bags, the state will still give them 2 kilograms of grain for this and that's it. And so it was with all products.

Peasants received payment for their work for the so-called workdays. The problem was that there was practically no money in the collective farms. Therefore, the peasants received not money, but products. This trend changed only in the 1960s. Then they began to give out money, but the money is very small. Collectivization was accompanied by the fact that the peasants were given something that simply allowed them to feed. Special mention deserves the fact that during the years of the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union, passports were issued. The fact, which today is not customary to talk about en masse, is that the peasants were not supposed to have a passport. As a result, the peasant could not leave to live in the city, because he did not have documents. In fact, people remained attached to the place where they were born.

Final results

And if we move away from Soviet propaganda and look at the events of those days independently, we will see distinct signs that make collectivization and serfdom similar. How did serfdom develop in imperial Russia? The peasants lived in communities in the village, they did not receive money, they obeyed the owner, they were limited in freedom of movement. The situation was the same with collective farms. The peasants lived in communities on collective farms, for their work they received not money, but food, they obeyed the head of the collective farm, and due to the lack of passports they could not leave the collective. In fact, the Soviet government, under the slogans of socialization, returned serfdom to the village. Yes, this serfdom was ideologically consistent, but the essence of this does not change. In the future, these negative elements were largely eliminated, but at the initial stage, everything happened just like that.

Collectivization, on the one hand, was based on absolutely anti-human principles, on the other hand, it allowed the young Soviet government to industrialize and stand firmly on its feet. Which of these is more important? Everyone must answer this question for himself. It can only be said with absolute certainty that the success of the first Five-Year Plans is based not on the genius of Stalin, but solely on terror, violence and blood.

Results and consequences of collectivization

The main results of the complete collectivization of agriculture can be expressed in the following theses:

• A terrible famine that killed millions of people.
• The complete destruction of all individual peasants who wanted and knew how to work.
• The growth rate of agriculture was very low because people were not interested in the end result of their work.
• Agriculture has become completely collective, destroying everything private.

40. Collectivization in the USSR: causes, methods of implementation, results.

The collectivization of agriculture in the USSR is the amalgamation of small individual peasant farms into large collective farms through production cooperation.

The Grain Procurement Crisis of 1927-1928 (peasants handed over to the state 8 times less grain than in the previous year) jeopardized plans for industrialization.

The 15th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (1927) proclaimed collectivization the main task of the Party in the countryside. The policy of collectivization was expressed in the widespread creation of collective farms, which were provided with benefits in the field of credit, taxation, and the supply of agricultural machinery.

Goals of collectivization:

increased grain exports to finance industrialization;

the implementation of socialist transformations in the countryside;

ensuring the supply of rapidly growing cities.

The pace of collectivization:

spring 1931 - the main grain regions (the Middle and Lower Volga regions, the North Caucasus);

spring 1932 - Central Chernozem region, Ukraine, Urals, Siberia, Kazakhstan;

end of 1932 - other districts.

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

In the spring of 1930, anti-kolkhoz demonstrations began (more than 2,000). In March 1930, Stalin published the article "Dizziness from Success" in which he blamed the local authorities for forced collectivization. Most of the peasants left the collective farms. However, already in the autumn of 1930, the authorities resumed forced collectivization.

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

The consequences of collectivization were extremely severe:

reduction in gross production of grain, livestock;

growth of export of bread;

the massive famine of 1932-1933, from which more than 5 million people died;

weakening economic incentives for the development of agricultural production;

alienation of peasants from property and the results of their labor.

41. USSR in the late 30s; internal development,

FOREIGN POLICY.

The domestic political and economic development of the USSR in the late 1930s remained complex and contradictory. This was due to the strengthening of the personality cult of I.V. Stalin, the omnipotence of the party leadership, and the further strengthening of the centralization of management. At the same time, the people's faith in the ideals of socialism, labor enthusiasm and high citizenship grew.

The economic development of the USSR was determined by the tasks of the third five-year plan (1938-1942). Despite the successes (in 1937, the USSR in terms of production came in second place in the world), the industrial lag behind the West was not overcome, especially in the development of new technologies and in the production of consumer goods. The main efforts in the 3rd Five-Year Plan were aimed at the development of industries that ensure the country's defense capability. In the Urals, Siberia, and Central Asia, the fuel and energy base was developing at an accelerated pace. "Backup plants" were created in the Urals, Western Siberia, and Central Asia.

In agriculture, the tasks of strengthening the country's defense capability were also taken into account. The sowing of industrial crops (cotton) expanded. By the beginning of 1941, significant food reserves had been created.

Particular attention was paid to the construction of defense plants. However, the creation of modern types of weapons for that time was delayed. New aircraft designs: Yak-1, MiG-3 fighters, Il-2 attack aircraft were developed during the 3rd Five-Year Plan, but they failed to establish their widespread production before the war. By the beginning of the war, the industry had not mastered the mass production of T-34 and KV tanks either.

Major measures were taken in the field of military construction. The transition to the personnel system of recruiting the army has been completed. The law on universal conscription (1939) made it possible to increase the size of the army by 1941 to 5 million people. In 1940, general and admiral ranks were established, complete unity of command was introduced.

Social events were also driven by defense needs. In 1940, a program for the development of state labor reserves was adopted and a transition was made to an 8-hour working day and a 7-day working week. A law was passed on judicial liability for unauthorized dismissal, absenteeism and lateness to work.

In the late 1930s, international tension increased. The Western powers pursued a policy of concessions to fascist Germany, trying to direct its aggression against the USSR. The culmination of this policy was the Munich Agreement (September 1938) between Germany, Italy, England and France, which formalized the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.

In the Far East, Japan, having captured most of China, approached the borders of the USSR. In the summer of 1938, an armed conflict took place on the territory of the USSR in the area of ​​Lake Khasan. The Japanese grouping was thrown back. In May 1938 Japanese troops invaded Mongolia. Parts of the Red Army under the command of G.K. Zhukov defeated them in the area of ​​​​the Khalkhin-Gol River.

At the beginning of 1939, the last attempt was made to create a system of collective security between Britain, France and the USSR. The Western powers dragged out negotiations. Therefore, the Soviet leadership went for rapprochement with Germany. On August 23, 1939, a Soviet-German non-aggression pact was concluded in Moscow for a period of 10 years (Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). It was accompanied by a secret protocol on the delimitation of spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. The interests of the USSR were recognized by Germany in the Baltic and Bessarabia.

On September 1, Germany attacked Poland. Under these conditions, the leadership of the USSR began to implement the Soviet-German agreements in August 1939. On September 17, the Red Army entered Western Belarus and Western Ukraine. In 1940, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became part of the USSR.

In November 1939, the USSR began a war with Finland in the hope of its quick defeat, in order to move the Soviet-Finnish border from Leningrad in the area of ​​the Karelian Isthmus. At the cost of enormous efforts, the resistance of the Finnish armed forces was broken. In March 1940, the Soviet-Finnish peace treaty was signed, according to which the USSR received the entire Karelian Isthmus.

In the summer of 1940, as a result of political pressure, Romania ceded Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the USSR.

As a result, significant territories with a population of 14 million people were included in the USSR. The foreign policy agreements of 1939 delayed the attack on the USSR for almost 2 years.

COLLECTIVIZATION OF AGRICULTURE

Plan

1. Introduction.

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

Purpose of collectivization :

1) the establishment of socialist production relations in the countryside,

2) the transformation of small-scale individual farms into large-scale highly productive social cooperative industries.

Reasons for collectivization:

1) The implementation of grandiose industrialization required a radical restructuring of the agricultural sector.

2) In Western countries, the agrarian revolution, i.e. system of improving agricultural production, preceded the industrial revolution. In the USSR, both of these processes had to be carried out simultaneously.

3) The village was considered not only as a source of food, but also as the most important channel for replenishing financial resources for the needs of industrialization.

In December, Stalin announced the end of the NEP and the transition to a policy of "liquidating the kulaks as a class." On January 5, 1930, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks issued a resolution "On the rate of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction." It set strict deadlines for the completion of collectivization: for the North Caucasus, the Lower and Middle Volga - autumn 1930, in extreme cases - spring 1931, for other grain regions - autumn 1931 or no later than spring 1932. All other regions were to "solve the problem of collectivization within five years." Such a formulation oriented to complete collectivization by the end of the first five-year plan. 2. The main part.

Dispossession. Two interconnected violent processes took place in the countryside: the creation of collective farms and dispossession. The "liquidation of the kulaks" was aimed primarily at providing the collective farms with a material base. From the end of 1929 to the middle of 1930, more than 320,000 peasant farms were dispossessed. Their property worth more than 175 million rubles. transferred to collective farms.

In the conventional sense, the fist- this is the one who used hired labor, but the middle peasant, who had two cows, or two horses, or a good house, could also be included in this category. Each district received a dispossession rate, which averaged 5-7% of the number of peasant households, but the local authorities, following the example of the first five-year plan, tried to overfulfill it. Often, not only the middle peasants, but also, for some reason, objectionable poor peasants were recorded in kulaks. To justify these actions, the ominous word "fist-fist" was coined. In some areas, the number of dispossessed reached 15-20%. The liquidation of the kulaks as a class, by depriving the countryside of the most enterprising, most independent peasants, undermined the spirit of resistance. In addition, the fate of the dispossessed was supposed to serve as an example to others, those who did not want to voluntarily go to the collective farm. Kulaks were evicted with their families, infants, and the elderly. In cold, unheated wagons, with a minimum amount of household belongings, thousands of people traveled to remote areas of the Urals, Siberia, and Kazakhstan. The most active "anti-Soviet" were sent to concentration camps. To assist the local authorities, 25,000 urban communists ("twenty-five thousand people") were sent to the countryside. "Dizzy with Success" By the spring of 1930, it became clear to Stalin that the insane collectivization launched at his call was threatening with disaster. Discontent began to seep into the army. Stalin made a well-calculated tactical move. On March 2, Pravda published his article "Dizziness from Success". He laid all the blame for the situation on the executors, local workers, declaring that "collective farms cannot be planted by force." After this article, most peasants began to perceive Stalin as a people's defender. A mass exit of peasants from collective farms began. But a step back was taken only in order to immediately take a dozen steps forward. In September 1930, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks sent a letter to local party organizations in which it condemned their passive behavior, fear of "excesses" and demanded "to achieve a powerful upsurge of the collective-farm movement." In September 1931, collective farms already united 60% of peasant households, in 1934 - 75%. 3. The results of collectivization.

The policy of continuous collectivization led to disastrous results: for 1929-1934. gross grain production decreased by 10%, the number of cattle and horses for 1929-1932. decreased by one third, pigs - 2 times, sheep - 2.5 times. The extermination of livestock, the ruin of the village by the incessant dispossession of kulaks, the complete disorganization of the work of collective farms in 1932-1933. led to an unprecedented famine that affected approximately 25-30 million people. To a large extent, it was provoked by the policy of the authorities. The country's leadership, trying to hide the scale of the tragedy, forbade mentioning the famine in the media. Despite its scale, 18 million centners of grain were exported abroad to receive foreign currency for the needs of industrialization. However, Stalin celebrated his victory: despite the reduction in grain production, its deliveries to the state increased by 2 times. But most importantly, collectivization created the necessary conditions for the implementation of plans for an industrial leap. It placed at the disposal of the city a huge number of workers, simultaneously eliminating agrarian overpopulation, made it possible, with a significant decrease in the number of employed, to maintain agricultural production at a level that did not allow for a long famine, and provided industry with the necessary raw materials. Collectivization not only created the conditions for transferring funds from the countryside to the city for the needs of industrialization, but also fulfilled an important political and ideological task, destroying the last island of the market economy - the privately owned peasant economy.

VKP (b) - All-Russian Communist Party of Bolsheviks of the USSR - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Reason 3 - But it is much easier to siphon funds from a few hundred large farms than to deal with millions of small ones. That is why, with the beginning of industrialization, a course was taken for the collectivization of agriculture - "the implementation of socialist transformations in the countryside." NEP - New Economic Policy

Central Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party of Bolsheviks - Central Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party of Bolsheviks

"Dizzy with Success"

In many areas, especially in the Ukraine, the Caucasus and Central Asia, the peasantry resisted mass dispossession. To suppress peasant unrest, regular units of the Red Army were involved. But most often the peasants used passive forms of protest: they refused to join collective farms, they destroyed livestock and implements as a sign of protest. Terrorist acts were also committed against "twenty-five thousand" and local collective farm activists. Collective farm holiday. Artist S. Gerasimov.