The year 1929 marked the beginning of the complete collectivization of agriculture in the USSR. In the famous article by J.V. Stalin “The Year of the Great Turning Point,” accelerated collective farm construction was recognized as the main task, the solution of which in three years would make the country “one of the most grain-producing, if not the most grain-producing country in the world.” The choice was made in favor of the liquidation of individual farms, dispossession, destruction of the grain market, and the actual nationalization of the village economy* What was behind the decision to begin collectivization? On the one hand, there was a growing conviction that economics always follows politics, and political expediency is higher than economic laws. These are the conclusions that the leadership of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) made from the experience of resolving the grain procurement crises of 1926-1929. The essence of the grain procurement crisis was that individual peasants were reducing grain supplies to the state and disrupting the planned indicators: fixed purchase prices were too low, and systematic attacks on the “village world-eaters” did not encourage an expansion of sown areas and an increase in yields. The party and the state assessed the problems, which were economic in nature, as political. The proposed solutions were appropriate: a ban on free trade in grain, confiscation of grain reserves, incitement of the poor against the wealthy part of the village. The results convinced of the effectiveness of violent measures. On the other hand, the accelerated industrialization that began required colossal investments. Their main source was recognized as the village, which, according to the plan of the developers of the new general line, was supposed to uninterruptedly supply industry with raw materials, and cities with practically free food. The collectivization policy was carried out in two main directions: the unification of individual farms into collective farms and dispossession. Collective farms were recognized as the main form of association of individual farms. They socialized land, cattle, and equipment. In the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 5, 1930. a truly rapid pace of collectivization was established: in key grain-producing regions (Volga region, North Caucasus) it was to be completed within one year; in Ukraine, in the black earth regions of Russia, in Kazakhstan - for two years; in other areas - within three years.
To speed up collectivization, “ideologically literate” urban workers were sent to the villages (first 25, and then another 35 thousand people). The hesitations, doubts, and spiritual tossings of individual peasants, for the most part tied to their own farm, to the land, to livestock (“I remain in the past with one foot, I slide and fall with the other,” Sergei Yesenin wrote on another occasion), were simply overcome - by force. Punitive authorities deprived those who persisted of voting rights, confiscated property, intimidated them, and put them under arrest. In parallel with collectivization, there was a campaign of dispossession, the elimination of the kulaks as a class. A secret directive was adopted on this score, according to which all the kulaks (who was meant by kulak was not clearly defined) were divided into three categories: participants in anti-Soviet movements; wealthy owners who had influence on their neighbors; everyone else. The first were subject to arrest and transfer into the hands of the OGPU; the second - eviction to remote regions of the Urals, Kazakhstan, Siberia along with their families; still others - resettlement to worse lands in the same area. Land, property, and monetary savings of the kulaks were subject to confiscation. The tragedy of the situation was aggravated by the fact that for all categories, firm targets were set for each region, which exceeded the actual number of wealthy peasants. There were also so-called podkulakniks, “accomplices of world-eating enemies” (“the most ragged farm laborer can easily be counted among the podkulakniks,” testifies A.I. Solzhenitsyn). According to historians, on the eve of collectivization there were about 3% of wealthy households; In some areas, up to 10-15% of individual farms were subject to dispossession. Arrests, executions, relocation to remote areas - the entire range of repressive means was used during dispossession, which affected at least 1 million households (the average number of families is 7-8 people). The response was mass unrest, livestock slaughter, covert and overt resistance. The state had to temporarily retreat: Stalin’s article “Dizziness from Success” (spring 1930) placed responsibility for violence and coercion on local authorities.
The reverse process began, millions of peasants left the collective farms. But already in the autumn of 1930 the pressure intensified again. In 1932--1933. Famine came to the most grain-producing regions of the country, primarily Ukraine, Stavropol, and the North Caucasus. According to the most conservative estimates, more than 3 million people died of starvation (according to other sources, up to 8 million). At the same time, both grain exports from the country and the volume of government supplies grew steadily. By 1933, more than 60% of peasants belonged to collective farms, by 1937 - about 93%. Collectivization was declared complete. What are its results? Statistics show that it dealt an irreparable blow to the agricultural economy (reduction in grain production, livestock numbers, yields, sown areas, etc.). At the same time, state grain procurements increased by 2 times, taxes on collective farms increased by 3.5 times. Behind this obvious contradiction lay the true tragedy of the Russian peasantry. Of course, large, technically equipped farms had certain advantages. But that was not the main thing. Collective farms, which formally remained voluntary cooperative associations, in fact turned into a type of state enterprise that had strict planned targets and were subject to directive management. During the passport reform, collective farmers did not receive passports: in fact, they were attached to the collective farm and deprived of freedom of movement. Industry grew at the expense of agriculture. Collectivization turned collective farms into reliable and uncomplaining suppliers of raw materials, food, capital, and labor. Moreover, it destroyed an entire social layer of individual peasants with their culture, moral values, and foundations. It was replaced by a new class - the collective farm peasantry
Collectivization of agriculture in the USSR- is the unification of small individual peasant farms into large collective ones through production cooperation.
Grain procurement crisis of 1927 - 1928 (peasants handed over 8 times less grain to the state than in the previous year) jeopardized industrialization plans.
The XV Congress of the CPSU (b) (1927) proclaimed collectivization as the main task of the party in the countryside. The implementation of the collectivization policy was reflected in the widespread creation of collective farms, which were provided with benefits in the field of credit, taxation, and the supply of agricultural machinery.
Goals of collectivization:- increasing grain exports to ensure financing of industrialization; - implementation of socialist transformations in the countryside; - ensuring supplies to rapidly growing cities.
The pace of collectivization:- spring 1931 - main grain regions (Middle and Lower Volga region, Northern Caucasus); - spring 1932 - Central Chernozem region, Ukraine, Ural, Siberia, Kazakhstan; - end of 1932 - other areas.
During mass collectivization, kulak farms were liquidated - dispossession. Lending was stopped and taxation of private households was increased, laws on land leasing and labor hiring were abolished. It was forbidden to admit kulaks to collective farms.
In the spring of 1930, anti-collective farm protests began (more than 2 thousand). In March 1930, Stalin published the article “Dizziness from Success,” in which he blamed local authorities for forced collectivization. Most of the peasants left the collective farms. However, already in the fall of 1930, the authorities resumed forced collectivization.
Collectivization was completed by the mid-30s: 1935 on collective farms - 62% of farms, 1937 - 93%.
The consequences of collectivization were extremely severe:- reduction in gross grain production and livestock numbers; - growth in bread exports; - mass famine of 1932 - 1933, from which over 5 million people died; - weakening of economic incentives for the development of agricultural production; - alienation of peasants from property and the results of their labor.
In the mid-1920s, the Soviet leadership took a confident course towards industrialization. But the massive construction of industrial facilities required a lot of money. They decided to take them in the village. This is how collectivization began.
How it all began
The Bolsheviks made attempts to force peasants to work the land together during the civil war. But people were reluctant to go to the communes. The peasantry was drawn to their own land and did not understand why they should transfer their hard-earned property to the “common pot.” Therefore, it was mainly the poor who ended up in the communes, and even those went without much desire.
With the beginning of the NEP, collectivization in the USSR slowed down. But already in the second half of the 1920s, when the next party congress decided to carry out industrialization, it became clear that a lot of money was needed for it. Nobody was going to take out loans abroad - after all, sooner or later they would have to be repaid. Therefore, we decided to obtain the necessary funds through exports, including grain. It was possible to siphon such resources from agriculture only by forcing peasants to work for the state. Yes, and the massive construction of plants and factories provided for the fact that people who needed to be fed would be drawn to the cities. Therefore, collectivization in the USSR was inevitable.
Any event that took place in the history of our country is important, and collectivization in the USSR cannot be briefly considered, since the event concerned a large segment of the population.
In 1927, the XV Congress was held, at which it was decided that it was necessary to change the course of agricultural development. The essence of the discussion was the unification of peasants into one whole and the creation of collective farms. This is how the process of collectivization began.
Reasons for collectivization
In order to begin any process in a country, the citizens of that country must be prepared. This is what happened in the USSR.
Residents of the country were prepared for the process of collectivization and the reasons for its beginning were outlined:
- The country needed industrialization, which could not be carried out partially. It was necessary to create a strong agricultural sector that would unite the peasants into one whole.
- At that time, the government did not look at the experience of foreign countries. And if abroad the process of the agrarian revolution began first, without the industrial revolution, then we decided to combine both processes for the correct construction of agrarian policy.
- In addition to the fact that the village could become the main source of food supplies, it also had to become a channel through which major investments could be made and industrialization developed.
All these conditions and reasons became the main starting point in the process of beginning the process of collectivization in the Russian village.
Goals of collectivization
As in any other process, before large-scale changes are launched, it is necessary to set clear goals and understand what needs to be achieved from one direction or another. It’s the same with collectivization.
In order to start the process, it was necessary to set the main goals and move towards them in a planned manner:
- The process was to establish socialist relations of production. There were no such relations in the village before collectivization.
- It was taken into account that in the villages almost every resident had his own farm, but it was small. Through collectivization, it was planned to create a large collective farm by uniting small farms into collective farms.
- The need to get rid of the kulaks class. This could only be done exclusively using the dispossession regime. This is what the Stalinist government did.
How did the collectivization of agriculture take place in the USSR?
The government of the Soviet Union understood that the Western economy developed due to the existence of colonies that did not exist in our country. But there were villages. It was planned to create collective farms based on the type and likeness of the colonies of foreign countries.
At that time, the newspaper Pravda was the main source from which residents of the country received information. In 1929, it published an article entitled “The Year of the Great Turning Point.” She was the one who started the process.
In the article, the leader of the country, whose authority during this period of time was quite great, reported the need to destroy the individual imperialist economy. In December of the same year, the beginning of the New Economic Policy and the elimination of the kulaks as a class were announced.
The developed documents characterized the establishment of strict deadlines for the implementation of the dispossession process for the North Caucasus and the Middle Volga. For Ukraine, Siberia and the Urals, a period of two years was established; three years was established for all other regions of the country. Thus, during the first five-year plan, all individual farms were to be transformed into collective farms.
Processes were going on in the villages simultaneously: a course towards dispossession and the creation of collective farms. All this was done using violent methods, and by 1930 about 320 thousand peasants had become poor. All property, and there was a lot of it - about 175 million rubles - was transferred to the ownership of collective farms.
1934 is considered the year of completion of collectivization.
Questions and answers section
- Why was collectivization accompanied by dispossession?
The process of transition to collective farms could not be carried out in any other way. Only poor peasants who could not donate anything for public use volunteered to join the collective farms. 
More prosperous peasants tried to preserve their farm in order to develop it. The poor were against this process because they wanted equality. Dekulakization was caused by the need to begin general forced collectivization.
- Under what slogan did the collectivization of peasant farms take place?
“Complete collectivization!”
- Which book vividly describes the period of collectivization?
In the 30-40s there was a huge amount of literature that described the processes of collectivization. Leonid Leonov was one of the first to draw attention to this process in his work “Sot”. The novel “Shadows Disappear at Noon” by Anatoly Ivanov tells how collective farms were created in Siberian villages.
And of course, “Virgin Soil Upturned” by Mikhail Sholokhov, where you can get acquainted with all the processes taking place in the village at that time.
- Can you name the pros and cons of collectivization?
Positive points:
- the number of tractors and combines on collective farms increased;
- Thanks to the food distribution system, mass starvation in the country was avoided during the Second World War.
Negative aspects of the transition to collectivization:
- led to the destruction of the traditional peasant way of life;
- the peasants did not see the results of their own labor;
- the consequence of a reduction in the number of cattle;
- the peasant class ceased to exist as a class of owners.
What are the features of collectivization?
Features include the following:
- After the collectivization process began, the country experienced industrial growth.
- The union of peasants into collective farms allowed the government to manage collective farms more efficiently.
- The entry of each peasant into the collective farm made it possible to begin the process of developing a common collective farm.
Are there films about collectivization in the USSR?
There are a large number of films about collectivization, and they were filmed precisely during the period of its implementation. The events of that time are most vividly reflected in the films: “Happiness”, “Old and New”, “Land and Freedom”.
Results of collectivization in the USSR
After the process was completed, the country began to count losses, and the results were disappointing:
- Grain production decreased by 10%;
- the number of cattle decreased by 3 times;
- The years 1932-1933 became terrible for the inhabitants of the country. If previously the village could feed not only itself, but also the city, now it could not even feed itself. This time is considered to be a hungry year;
- despite the fact that people were starving, almost all grain reserves were sold abroad.
The process of mass collectivization destroyed the wealthy population of the village, but at the same time a large number of the population remained on the collective farms, which was kept there by force. Thus, the policy of establishing Russia as an industrial state was carried out.
23. Collectivization of agriculture: goals, objectives, methods and consequences
Realizing that accelerated industrialization and the consolidation of commanding heights in the economy are impossible while maintaining small-scale private peasant farming, the Stalinist leadership in 1928-29 set a course for “complete collectivization” of the countryside and the elimination of the wealthy layer of the peasantry (“kulaks”).
Goals:
Implementation of socialist transformations in the countryside;
Ensuring at any cost the supply of rapidly growing cities during industrialization;
Development of a system of forced labor from among special settlers - deported kulaks and members of their families.
3 Stages of complete collectivization:
1. 1929 Dispossession. Measures to liquidate kulak farms included a ban on leasing land and hiring labor, measures to confiscate means of production, outbuildings, and seed stocks. Peasants who used hired labor and owned 2 cows and 2 horses were considered kulaks. The so-called kulak members from the middle and poor peasants who did not approve of collectivization were also subjected to repression (from arrests to deportation).
From the end of 1929 to the middle of 1930, over 320 thousand peasant farms were dispossessed. Over two years (1930-1931), 381 thousand families were evicted to special settlements. Former kulaks were sent to the North, to Kazakhstan, to Siberia, to the Urals, the Far East, and the North Caucasus. In total, by 1932, there were 1.4 million (and according to some sources, about 5 million) former kulaks, subkulak members and members of their families in special settlements (excluding those in camps and prisons). A minority of those evicted were engaged in agriculture, while the majority worked in construction, forestry and mining in the Gulag system.
Many collective farms were created, but their material base was very weak. Violent methods caused discontent among the peasants. Happened anti-collective farm riots and uprisings in the North Caucasus, Middle and Lower Volga and other areas.
According to the Resolution “On measures to eliminate kulak farms in areas of complete collectivization,” the kulaks were divided into three categories:
The heads of kulak families of the 1st category were arrested, and cases about their actions were transferred to special troikas consisting of representatives of the OGPU, regional committees (territorial committees) of the CPSU (b) and the prosecutor's office. Family members of category 1 kulaks and category 2 kulaks were subject to deportation to remote areas of the USSR or remote areas of a given region (region, republic) to a special settlement. The kulaks assigned to the 3rd category settled within the region on new lands specially allocated for them outside the collective farms.
2. 1930 Temporary retreat. In the article “Dizziness from Success” (dated March 2, 1930), Stalin was forced to admit excesses on the ground. As a result, exit from collective farms was allowed. By August, only a fifth of farms remained socialized. But the respite was only temporary. Since the fall, violence has resumed.
3. 1931 – 1940 - the third stage of collectivization. The main goal during this period was to attract the remaining third of the village to collective farms. During the Second Five-Year Plan (1933-1937), the collectivization of agriculture was completely completed. The collective farm system was legally formalized in its basic outlines. The bulk of the peasants became collective farmers.
Results of collectivization.
The creation of formally self-governing collective farms (collective farms), which, along with state farms (state farms), became the main producers of agricultural products, allowed the Soviet state to significantly increase the volume of forced procurement of food and raw materials, although agricultural production by 1940 remained at the level of 1924-28. The forced confiscation of agricultural products without taking into account the needs of the village itself led in 1932-33 to mass famine in Ukraine, the Volga region, and the North Caucasus; Millions of people became victims of famine.
The social and legal situation of the peasants remaining in the village has worsened . Peasants, who made up half of the workers, were deprived of social rights. With the introduction of the passport system in 1932, passports were not issued to the peasantry, as a result of which this part of Soviet citizens became effectively tied to the land and deprived of freedom of movement.
During the period of formation and development of the Soviet state, the history of which began with the victory of the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution, there were many large-scale economic projects, the implementation of which was carried out by harsh coercive measures. One of them is the complete collectivization of agriculture, the goals, essence, results and methods of which became the topic of this article.
What is collectivization and what is its purpose?
Complete collectivization of agriculture can be briefly defined as the widespread process of merging small individual agricultural holdings into large collective associations, abbreviated as collective farms. In 1927, the next one took place, at which the course was set for the implementation of this program, which was then carried out in the main part of the country by
Complete collectivization, in the opinion of the party leadership, should have allowed the country to solve the then acute food problem by reorganizing small farms belonging to middle and poor peasants into large collective agricultural complexes. At the same time, the total liquidation of the rural kulaks, declared the enemy of socialist reforms, was envisaged.
Reasons for collectivization
The initiators of collectivization saw the main problem of agriculture in its fragmentation. Numerous small producers, deprived of the opportunity to purchase modern equipment, mostly used ineffective and low-productivity manual labor in the fields, which did not allow them to obtain high yields. The consequence of this was an ever-increasing shortage of food and industrial raw materials.
To solve this vital problem, complete collectivization of agriculture was launched. The start date of its implementation, which is generally considered to be December 19, 1927 - the day of completion of the XV Congress of the CPSU (b), became a turning point in the life of the village. A violent breakdown of the old, centuries-old way of life began.
Do this - I don’t know what
Unlike previously carried out agrarian reforms in Russia, such as those carried out in 1861 by Alexander II and in 1906 by Stolypin, collectivization carried out by the communists had neither a clearly developed program nor specifically designated ways of its implementation.
The party congress gave instructions for a radical change in policy regarding agriculture, and then local leaders were obliged to implement it themselves, at their own peril and risk. Even their attempts to contact the central authorities for clarification were suppressed.
The process has begun
Nevertheless, the process, which began with the party congress, began and already the next year covered a significant part of the country. Despite the fact that officially joining collective farms was declared voluntary, in most cases their creation was carried out through administrative and coercive measures.
Already in the spring of 1929, agricultural commissioners appeared in the USSR - officials who traveled to the field and, as representatives of the highest state power, monitored the progress of collectivization. They were given assistance from numerous Komsomol detachments, also mobilized to reorganize the life of the village.
Stalin about the “great turning point” in the life of peasants
On the day of the next 12th anniversary of the revolution - November 7, 1928, the Pravda newspaper published an article by Stalin, in which he stated that a “great turning point” had come in the life of the village. According to him, the country has managed to make a historic transition from small-scale agricultural production to advanced farming on a collective basis.
It also cited many specific indicators (mostly exaggerated), indicating that complete collectivization brought a tangible economic effect everywhere. From that day on, the editorials of most Soviet newspapers were filled with praise for the “victorious march of collectivization.”
Peasants' reaction to forced collectivization
The real picture was radically different from the one that the propaganda organs were trying to present. The forced confiscation of grain from peasants, accompanied by widespread arrests and destruction of farms, essentially plunged the country into a state of new civil war. At the time when Stalin spoke about the victory of the socialist reorganization of the countryside, peasant uprisings were raging in many parts of the country, numbering in the hundreds by the end of 1929.
At the same time, real agricultural production, contrary to statements by the party leadership, did not increase, but fell catastrophically. This was due to the fact that many peasants, fearing to be classified as kulaks, and not wanting to give their property to the collective farm, deliberately reduced crops and slaughtered livestock. Thus, complete collectivization is, first of all, a painful process, rejected by the majority of rural residents, but carried out using methods of administrative coercion.
Attempts to speed up the process
At the same time, in November 1929, a decision was made to intensify the ongoing process of restructuring agriculture to send 25 thousand of the most conscious and active workers to the villages to manage the collective farms created there. This episode went down in the history of the country as the “twenty-five thousanders” movement. Subsequently, when collectivization took on an even greater scale, the number of city envoys almost tripled.
An additional impetus to the process of socialization of peasant farms was given by the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 5, 1930. It indicated specific deadlines within which complete collectivization was to be completed in the main arable areas of the country. The directive prescribed their final transfer to a collective form of management by the fall of 1932.
Despite the categorical nature of the resolution, it, as before, did not give any specific explanations regarding the methods of involving the peasant masses in collective farms and did not even give a precise definition of what the collective farm was ultimately supposed to be. As a result, each local boss was guided by his own idea of this, unprecedented form of organization of work and life.
Arbitrariness of local authorities
This state of affairs became the reason for numerous cases of local self-government. One such example is Siberia, where local officials, instead of collective farms, began to create certain communes with the socialization of not only livestock, equipment and arable land, but also all property in general, including personal belongings.
At the same time, local leaders, competing with each other to achieve the highest percentages of collectivization, did not hesitate to use brutal repressive measures against those who tried to evade participation in the ongoing process. This caused a new explosion of discontent, which in many areas took the form of open rebellion.
Famine resulting from the new agricultural policy
Nevertheless, each individual district received a specific plan for the collection of agricultural products intended both for the domestic market and for export, for the implementation of which the local leadership was personally responsible. Each short delivery was considered a sign of sabotage and could have tragic consequences.
For this reason, a situation arose in which the heads of districts, fearing liability, forced collective farmers to hand over to the state all available grain, including the seed fund. The same picture was observed in livestock farming, where all breeding cattle were sent to slaughter for reporting purposes. The difficulties were also aggravated by the extreme incompetence of collective farm leaders, most of whom came to the village at the party call and had no idea about agriculture.
As a result, the complete collectivization of agriculture carried out in this way led to interruptions in the food supply of cities, and in villages - to widespread hunger. It was especially destructive in the winter of 1932 and spring of 1933. At the same time, despite the obvious miscalculations of the leadership, the official bodies blamed what was happening on certain enemies trying to hinder the development of the national economy.
Elimination of the best part of the peasantry
A significant role in the actual failure of the policy was played by the elimination of the so-called class of kulaks - wealthy peasants who managed to create strong farms during the NEP period and produced a significant part of all agricultural products. Naturally, it did not make sense for them to join collective farms and voluntarily lose the property acquired by their labor.
Since such an example did not fit into the general concept of arranging village life, and they themselves, in the opinion of the party leadership of the country, prevented the involvement of the poor and middle peasants in collective farms, a course was taken to eliminate them.
A corresponding directive was immediately issued, on the basis of which kulak farms were liquidated, all property was transferred to the ownership of collective farms, and they themselves were forcibly evicted to the regions of the Far North and Far East. Thus, complete collectivization in the grain-growing regions of the USSR took place in an atmosphere of total terror against the most successful representatives of the peasantry, who constituted the main labor potential of the country.
Subsequently, a number of measures taken to overcome this situation made it possible to partially normalize the situation in the villages and significantly increase the production of agricultural products. This allowed Stalin, at the party plenum held in January 1933, to declare the complete victory of socialist relations in the collective farm sector. It is generally accepted that this was the end of the complete collectivization of agriculture.
What was the outcome of collectivization?
The most eloquent evidence of this is the statistical data released during the years of perestroika. They are amazing even though they are apparently incomplete. It is clear from them that the complete collectivization of agriculture ended with the following results: during its period, over 2 million peasants were deported, with the peak of this process occurring in 1930-1931. when about 1 million 800 thousand rural residents were subjected to forced relocation. They were not kulaks, but for one reason or another they found themselves unpopular in their native land. In addition, 6 million people became victims of famine in villages.
As mentioned above, the policy of forced socialization of farms led to mass protests among rural residents. According to data preserved in the archives of the OGPU, in March 1930 alone there were about 6,500 uprisings, and the authorities used weapons to suppress 800 of them.
In general, it is known that that year over 14 thousand popular uprisings were recorded in the country, in which about 2 million peasants took part. In this regard, one often hears the opinion that complete collectivization carried out in this way can be equated to the genocide of one’s own people.
