The essence and principles of collectivization. The essence and principles of collectivization Reasons for the progress and results of collectivization

Introduction

The purpose of this essay: to study the history of collectivization of agriculture, as well as the ways of its development.

• 1) recreate the historical situation;
• 2) find out the reasons for collectivization, as well as the goals and method of achievement;
• 3) find out the results and consequences of collectivization.

Relevance and novelty of the topic:

The establishment of the collective farm system was complex and contradictory. Complete collectivization, carried out at an accelerated pace, was previously perceived as a single and optimal development option.

Today collectivization appears as an extremely contradictory and ambiguous phenomenon. Today, the results of the path traveled are known, and one can judge not only the subjective intentions, but also the objective consequences, and most importantly, the economic price and social costs of collectivization. Therefore, this problem is still relevant today.

Reasons for collectivization

The government confidently led the country along the path of industrialization, achieving new successes. While in industry the rate of increase in production was continuously growing, in agriculture the opposite process was taking place.

Small peasant farms not only could not use such a tool for increasing agricultural productivity as a tractor, but for a third of peasant farms even keeping a horse was not profitable. The process of collectivization meant changes not only in the destinies of the multimillion-dollar peasantry, but also in the life of the entire country.

The collectivization of agriculture was an important event in the history of Russia in the twentieth century. Collectivization was not just a process of socialization of farms, but a way of subordinating the bulk of the population to the state. This subjugation was often carried out by violent means. Thus, many peasants were classified as kulaks and subjected to repression. Even now, after so many years, relatives of the repressed are trying to find information about the fate of their loved ones who disappeared in the camps or were shot. Thus, collectivization affected the fate of millions of people and left a deep mark on the history of our state.

I consider several reasons that led to the collectivization of agriculture, but I want to dwell in more detail on two of them: firstly, the October Revolution of 1917, and secondly, the grain procurement crisis in the country in 1927 - 1928.

In the fall of 1917, Russia's economic and military situation deteriorated even further. The devastation paralyzed its national economy. The country was on the brink of disaster. There were protests by workers, soldiers, and peasants throughout the country. The slogan “All power to the Soviets!” became universal. The Bolsheviks confidently directed the revolutionary struggle. Before October, the party numbered about 350 thousand people in its ranks. The revolutionary upsurge in Russia coincided with the growing revolutionary crisis in Europe. A sailors' revolt broke out in Germany. Anti-government protests by workers took place in Italy. Based on an analysis of the internal and international situation of the country, Lenin realized that the conditions for an armed uprising were ripe. The slogan “All power to the Soviets!”, Lenin noted, became a call for uprising. The speedy overthrow of the Provisional Government was the national and international duty of the workers' party. Lenin considered it necessary to immediately begin organizational and military-technical preparations for the uprising. He proposed creating an uprising headquarters, organizing armed forces, striking suddenly and capturing Petrograd: seizing the telephone, the Winter Palace, the telegraph, bridges, and arresting members of the Provisional Government.

The Second Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which opened on the evening of October 25, was faced with the fact of the victory of the Bolshevik coup. Right Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and representatives of a number of other parties left the congress in protest against the overthrow of the democratic government. News received from the army about support for the uprising in Petrograd ensured a change in the mood of the delegates. Leadership of the congress passed to the Bolsheviks. The Congress adopts Decrees on land, peace and power.

Peace Decree proclaimed Russia's withdrawal from the imperialist war. The Congress addressed the governments and peoples of the world with a proposal for democratic peace. The Land Decree abolished private ownership of land. The sale and rental of land was prohibited. All land became the property of the state and was declared national property. All citizens received the right to use land provided they cultivated it with their own labor, family or partnership without the use of hired labor. The decree on power proclaimed the universal establishment of Soviet power. Executive power was transferred to the Bolshevik government - the Council of People's Commissars, headed by V.I. Lenin. When discussing and adopting each decree, it was emphasized that they were temporary in nature - until the convening of the Constituent Assembly, which would determine the fundamental foundations of the social structure. Lenin's government was also called Provisional.

This was the first victorious socialist revolution in history, carried out in 1917 by the working class of Russia in alliance with the poor peasantry under the leadership of the Communist Party headed by V. I. Lenin. The name "October" - from the date October 25 (new style - November 7) As a result of the October Revolution, the power of the bourgeoisie and landowners was overthrown in Russia and the dictatorship of the proletariat was established, the Soviet socialist state was created. The Great October Socialist Revolution was the triumph of Marxism-Leninism and opened a new era in the history of mankind - the era of transition from capitalism to socialism and communism.

The second reason is the grain procurement crisis in the country in 1927-1928.

As soon as the congress ended, the authorities faced a serious grain procurement crisis. In November, supplies of agricultural products to the state were greatly reduced, and in December the situation became simply catastrophic. The party was taken by surprise. Back in October, Stalin publicly declared “excellent relations” with the peasantry. In January 1928, we had to face the truth: despite a good harvest, the peasants supplied only 300 million poods of grain (instead of 430 million as in the previous year). There was nothing to export. The country found itself without the currency necessary for industrialization. Moreover, the food supply of the cities was threatened. Declining purchasing prices, high prices and shortages of manufactured goods, lower taxes for the poorest peasants, confusion at grain delivery points, rumors about the outbreak of war spreading in the countryside - all this soon allowed Stalin to declare that a “peasant revolt” was taking place in the country.

In January 1928, the Politburo of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks voted for “the use of emergency measures against the kulak due to the difficulties of the grain procurement campaign.” It is significant that this decision was also supported by the “right” - Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky. They voted for emergency measures at the April Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. Of course, they emphasized that such measures should be of an exclusively temporary nature, and in no case turn into a system. But here, too, their position was not very different from the views expressed at that time by Stalin.

The “extraordinary measures” taken in 1928 gave the expected result: despite the poor harvest in the main grain regions in the 1928-1929 season, only 2% less grain was harvested than in 1926/27. However, the flip side of this policy was that the unstable compromise between city and countryside that had been established at the end of the Civil War was undermined: “The use of force during grain procurement in 1928 can be considered quite successful,” writes the famous historian Moshe Levin, “but it predetermined inevitable troubles during the next procurement campaign; and soon it was necessary to introduce rationing in order to cope with “food difficulties.”

The forced confiscation of grain from the countryside destroyed the precarious socio-political balance on which the Soviet model of the 1920s rested. The peasantry was losing confidence in the Bolshevik city, and this meant the need for even tougher measures in order to maintain control over the situation. If in 1928 emergency measures were still applied in a limited and selective manner, then in 1929, against the backdrop of the global depression that had already set in, the Soviet leadership was forced to resort to the massive seizure of grain and the “dekulakization” of owners working for the private market.

As a result, emergency measures introduced as temporary had to be repeated again and again, turning into a permanent practice. However, the impossibility of such a situation was obvious to everyone. If during the Civil War the “prodrazvestka” could achieve its goal for some time, then in peacetime a different solution was required. It was the massive confiscation of grain in the countryside in 1918 that fueled the fire of the Civil War. To pursue such a policy constantly meant, sooner or later, to lead the country to a new outbreak of civil conflict, during which Soviet power could well collapse.

There was no turning back now. The New Economic Policy failed, unable to withstand the test of the Great Depression. Since it was no longer possible to maintain control over the food market through periodic confiscations, new slogans were born: “Complete collectivization” and “liquidation of the kulaks as a class.” Essentially, we are talking about the possibility of controlling agriculture directly, from the inside, by uniting all producers into collective farms subordinate to the state. Accordingly, it becomes possible, without any emergency measures, to withdraw from the village by administrative method at any time as much grain as the state needs, bypassing the market.

Successful industrial construction and the labor upsurge of the working class were important for the socialist restructuring of agriculture. From the second half of 1929, the rapid growth of collective farms - collective farms - began in the USSR.

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 forming collective farms throughout the country, which were to include individual private land owners. The implementation of collectivization plans was entrusted to activists of the revolutionary movement, as well as the so-called twenty-five thousanders. 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 industrialize 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 an extreme measure with which to solve the vast majority of 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, we can highlight the following:

• Crisis of 1927. The revolution, civil war and confusion in the leadership led to a record low harvest in the agricultural sector in 1927. This was a strong blow for the new Soviet government, as well as for its foreign economic activity.
• Elimination of the kulaks. The young Soviet government still saw counter-revolution and supporters of the imperial regime at every step. That is why the policy of dispossession was continued en masse.
• Centralized agricultural management. The legacy of the Soviet regime was a country where the vast majority of people were engaged in individual agriculture. The new government was not happy with this situation, since the state sought to control everything in the country. But 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 means 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 the whole country built factories, hydroelectric power stations, dams, and so on. This was all extremely important, since during the years of the revolution and 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 within the country.

At the initial stage, the leaders of the Soviet government often said that Western countries were able to develop their own economies only thanks to their colonies, from which they squeezed all the juice. There were no such colonies in Russia, much less the Soviet Union. But according to the plan of the country’s new leadership, collective farms were to become such internal colonies. In fact, this is what happened. Collectivization created collective farms, which provided the country with food, free or very cheap labor, as well as workers with the help of which industrialization took place. It was for these purposes that a course was taken towards the collectivization of agriculture. This course was officially reversed on November 7, 1929, when an article by Stalin entitled “The Year of the Great Turning Point” appeared in the newspaper Pravda. In this article, the Soviet leader said that within a year the country should 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 eliminated in the country.

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

• Northern Caucasus, Volga region. Here the deadline for the creation of collective farms was set for the spring of 1931. In fact, two regions were supposed to move to collectivization in one year.
• Other grain regions. Any other regions where grain was grown on a large scale were also subject to collectivization, but until the spring of 1932.
• Other regions of the country. The remaining regions, which were less attractive in terms of agriculture, were planned to be integrated into collective farms within 5 years.

The problem was that this document clearly regulated which regions to work with and in what time frame the action should be carried out. But this same document said nothing about the ways in which 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 almost everyone reduced the solution to this problem to violence. The state said “We must” and turned a blind eye to how this “We must” was implemented...

Why was collectivization accompanied by dispossession?

Solving the tasks 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. After all, 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. And so they did. All “kulaks” had their property confiscated and transferred to collective farms.

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

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

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

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 by what principles the definition of kulak and peasant worker took place. At best, we are told that fists were meant by people who had 2 cows or 2 horses on their farm. In practice, almost no one adhered to such criteria, and even a peasant who had nothing in his soul could be declared a fist. For example, my close friend's great-grandfather was called a "kulak" because he owned a cow. For this, everything was taken away from him and he was exiled to Sakhalin. And there are thousands of such cases...

We have already talked above about the resolution of January 5, 1930. This decree 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:

• Counter-revolutionaries. The paranoid fear of the Soviet government of counter-revolution made this category of kulaks one of 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.
• Rich peasants. They also did not stand on ceremony with rich peasants. According to Stalin's plan, the property of such people was also subject to complete confiscation, and the peasants themselves, along with all members of their family, were resettled to remote regions of the country.
• Peasants with average income. 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 absolutely did not indicate 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 disliked by people with weapons were often called kulaks. This is exactly how collectivization and dispossession took place. Activists of the Soviet movement were given weapons, and they enthusiastically carried the banner of Soviet power. Often, under the banner of this power, and under the guise of collectivization, they simply settled personal scores. For this purpose, a special term “subkulak” was even coined. And even poor peasants who had nothing belonged to this category.

As a result, we see that those people who were capable of running a profitable individual economy were subjected to massive repression. In fact, these were people who for many years built their farm in such a way that it could make money. These were people who actively cared about the results 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 ended up. These people were used, as a rule, as free labor. Moreover, this labor was used in the most difficult jobs, which ordinary citizens did not want to work on. These were logging, oil mining, gold mining, coal mining and so on. In fact, political prisoners forged the success of those Five-Year Plans that the Soviet government so proudly reported on. But this is a topic for another article. Now it should be noted that dispossession on collective farms amounted to extreme cruelty, which caused active discontent among the local population. As a result, in many regions where collectivization was proceeding at the most active pace, mass uprisings began to be observed. They even used the army to suppress them. It became obvious that the forced collectivization of agriculture did not give the necessary success. Moreover, the discontent of the local population began to spread to the army. After all, when an army, instead of fighting the enemy, fights its own population, this greatly undermines its spirit and discipline. It became obvious that it was simply impossible to drive people into 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 collective farms. And such unrest and discontent among people was “achieved” 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 onto local authorities. As a result, an ideal image of a Soviet leader who wishes the people well began to emerge. 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 this 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 collectivization of the agricultural sector. The party called for active action in order to achieve a powerful entry of people into collective farms. As a result, in 1931 already 60% of peasants were on collective farms. In 1934 - 75%.

In fact, “Dizziness from Success” was necessary for the Soviet government as a means of influencing its own people. It was necessary to somehow justify the atrocities and violence that occurred within the country. The country's leadership could not take the blame, since 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 just a few months later they stopped resisting forced entry into the collective farm.

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 throughout the country decreased by 10%, the number of cattle decreased by a third, and the number of sheep by 2.5 times. Such figures are observed in all aspects of agricultural activity. Subsequently, these negative trends were overcome, but at the initial stage the negative effect was extremely strong. This negativity resulted in the famous 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 famine. These events were caused both by the actions of the Soviet government on collectivization and by a lean year. Despite the weak harvest, almost the entire grain supply was sold abroad. This sale was necessary in order to continue industrialization. Industrialization continued, but this continuation cost millions of lives.

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

Peasants received payment for their labor for so-called workdays. The problem was that there was practically no money on collective farms. Therefore, the peasants did not receive money, but products. This trend changed only in the 60s. Then they began to give out money, but the money was very small. Collectivization was accompanied by the fact that the peasants were given what simply allowed them to feed themselves. The fact that during the years of collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union, passports were issued deserves special mention. A fact that is not widely discussed today is that peasants were not entitled to a passport. As a result, the peasant could not go to live in the city because he did not have documents. In fact, people remained tied 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 clear 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, and were limited in freedom of movement. The situation with collective farms was the same. The peasants lived in communities on collective farms, for their work they received not money, but food, they were subordinate to 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 villages. Yes, this serfdom was ideologically consistent, but the essence does not change. Subsequently, these negative elements were largely eliminated, but at the initial stage everything happened this way.

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 themselves. The only thing that can be said with absolute certainty is 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.
• 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 became completely collective, eliminating everything private.

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 All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1927. It was carried out 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.

Goal of collectivization :

1) establishment of socialist production relations in the countryside,

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

Reasons for collectivization:

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

2) In Western countries, the agricultural revolution, i.e. a system of improving agricultural production that 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 “liquidation of 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 pace of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction.” It set strict deadlines for completing collectivization: for the North Caucasus, 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 had to “solve the problem of collectivization within five years.” This formulation aimed to complete collectivization by the end of the first five-year plan. 2. Main part.

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

In the generally accepted sense, a fist- this is someone who used hired labor, but this category could also include a middle peasant who had two cows, or two horses, or a good house. Each district received a dispossession norm, which equaled on average 5-7% of the number of peasant households, but local authorities, following the example of the first five-year plan, tried to exceed it. Often, not only the middle peasants, but also, for some reason, the unwanted poor people were registered as kulaks. To justify these actions, the ominous word “podkulaknik” was coined. In some areas the number of dispossessed people reached 15-20%. The liquidation of the kulaks as a class, depriving the village of the most enterprising, most independent peasants, undermined the spirit of resistance. In addition, the fate of the dispossessed should have served as an example to others, to those who did not want to voluntarily go to the collective farm. Kulaks were evicted with their families, infants, and old people. In cold, unheated carriages, 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” activists were sent to concentration camps. To assist local authorities, 25 thousand urban communists (“twenty-five thousanders”) were sent to the village. "Dizziness from success." By the spring of 1930, it became clear to Stalin that the insane collectivization launched at his call was threatening disaster. Discontent began to permeate the army. Stalin made a well-calculated tactical move. On March 2, Pravda published his article “Dizziness from Success.” He placed all the blame for the current situation on the executors, local workers, declaring that “collective farms cannot be established by force.” After this article, most peasants began to perceive Stalin as a people's protector. A mass exodus of peasants from collective farms began. But a step back was taken only to immediately take a dozen steps forward. In September 1930, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) sent a letter to local party organizations, in which it condemned their passive behavior, fear of “excesses” and demanded “to achieve a powerful rise in the collective farm movement.” In September 1931, collective farms united already 60% of peasant households, in 1934 - 75%. 3.Results of collectivization.

The policy of complete collectivization led to catastrophic results: in 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. Extermination of livestock, ruin of the village by continuous dispossession, 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 policies of the authorities. The country's leadership, trying to hide the scale of the tragedy, banned mention of the famine in the media. Despite its scale, 18 million centners of grain were exported abroad to obtain foreign currency for the needs of industrialization. However, Stalin celebrated his victory: despite the reduction in grain production, its supplies to the state doubled. 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 employees, to maintain agricultural production at a level that prevented prolonged famine, and provided industry with the necessary raw materials. Collectivization not only created the conditions for pumping funds from villages to cities for the needs of industrialization, but also fulfilled an important political and ideological task by destroying the last island of a market economy - privately owned peasant farming.

All-Russian Communist Party of the Bolsheviks of the USSR - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Reason 3 - But it is much easier to siphon funds from several hundred large farms than to deal with millions of small ones. That is why, with the beginning of industrialization, a course was taken towards 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 the Bolsheviks

"Dizziness from success"

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

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

The collectivization of agriculture in the USSR is the unification of small individual peasant farms into large collective farms 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 provide financing for 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 - remaining 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.

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

FOREIGN POLICY.

The internal political and economic development of the USSR at the end of the 30s remained complex and contradictory. This was explained by the strengthening of the personality cult of J.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 took second place in the world in terms of production), 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 developing 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. “Double factories” 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. Plantings 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 factories. However, the creation of modern types of weapons for that time was delayed. New aircraft designs: the Yak-1, Mig-3 fighters, and the Il-2 attack aircraft were developed during the 3rd Five-Year Plan, but they were not able to establish widespread production before the war. The industry also had not mastered the mass production of T-34 and KV tanks by the beginning of the war.

Major events were carried out in the field of military development. The transition to a personnel system for recruiting the army has been completed. The law on universal conscription (1939) made it possible to increase the size of the army to 5 million people by 1941. In 1940, the ranks of general and admiral were established, and 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 the transition to an 8-hour working day and a 7-day working week was implemented. A law was passed on judicial liability for unauthorized dismissal, absenteeism and lateness to work.

At the end of the 1930s, international tensions increased. The Western powers pursued a policy of concessions to Nazi 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 occurred on the territory of the USSR in the area of ​​Lake Khasan. The Japanese group was repulsed. In May 1938, Japanese troops invaded Mongolia. Units 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 England, France and the USSR. The Western powers delayed negotiations. Therefore, the Soviet leadership moved towards rapprochement with Germany. On August 23, 1939, a Soviet-German non-aggression pact for a period of 10 years (Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) was concluded in Moscow. Attached to it was 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 states and Bessarabia.

On September 1, Germany attacked Poland. Under these conditions, the leadership of the USSR began to implement the Soviet-German agreements of 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 started a war with Finland in the hope of its quick defeat, with the goal of moving the Soviet-Finnish border away from Leningrad in the Karelian Isthmus region. At the cost of enormous efforts, the resistance of the Finnish armed forces was broken. In March 1940, a 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, large territories with a population of 14 million people were included in the USSR. Foreign policy agreements of 1939 delayed the attack on the USSR for almost 2 years.

Collectivization of agriculture is one of the most important events of the Bolshevik leadership of the totalitarian period. The goal of collectivization was the centralization of agricultural management, control over products and budgets, and overcoming the consequences of the crisis of the NEP economy. The most important feature of collectivization was the unification of the forms of collective farms (kolkhozes), to which the state gave a certain amount of land and from which most of the produced product was confiscated. Another feature of collective farms was the strict subordination of all collective farms to the center; collective farms were created by directive based on resolutions of the Central Committee of the Party and the Council of People's Commissars.

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 start 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 CPSU(b) 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 the supply of grain 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 plans 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.

Plans and methods The collectivization policy involved the abolition of land leases, a ban on hired labor, and dispossession, i.e., confiscation of land and property from wealthy peasants (kulaks). The kulaks themselves, if they were not shot, were sent to Siberia or Solovki. Thus, in Ukraine alone in 1929, more than 33 thousand kulaks were put on trial, their property was completely confiscated and sold. In 1930-1931 During dispossession, approximately 381 thousand “kulak” families were evicted to certain regions of the country. In total, more than 3.5 people were evicted during dispossession. The cattle confiscated from the kulaks were also sent to collective farms, but the lack of control and funds for maintaining the animals led to the loss of livestock. From 1928 to 1934, the number of cattle decreased by almost half. The lack of public grain storage facilities, specialists and equipment for processing large areas led to a decrease in grain procurements, which caused famine in the Caucasus, the Volga region, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine (3-5 million people died).

Collectivization measures met with massive resistance from peasants. The passive resistance of the peasants and the resettlement to the city were broken by the introduction in 1932 of the passport system, which attached the peasants to the land. Refusals to join the collective farm were regarded as sabotage and undermining Soviet foundations; those who resisted forced inclusion in the collective farm were equated with kulaks. In order to interest the peasants, it was allowed to create a subsidiary farm on a small plot of land allocated for a vegetable garden, housing and outbuildings. The sale of products obtained from personal plots was allowed.

Results of collectivization of agriculture As a result of the collectivization policy, by 1932, 221 thousand collective farms were created, which amounted to approximately 61% of peasant farms. By 1937-1938 collectivization was completed. Over the years, over 5,000 machine and tractor stations (MTS) were built, which provided the village with the equipment necessary for planting, harvesting and processing grain. The sown area has expanded to include more industrial crops (potatoes, sugar beets, sunflowers, cotton, buckwheat, etc.).

In many respects, the results of collectivization did not correspond to those planned. For example, the growth of gross product in 1928-1934. amounted to 8%, instead of the planned 50%. The level of efficiency of collective farms can be judged by the growth of state grain procurements, which increased from 10.8 (1928) to 29.6% (1935). However, subsidiary farms accounted for 60 to 40% of the total production of potatoes, vegetables, fruits, meat, butter, milk and eggs. Collective farms played a leading role only in the procurement of bread and some industrial crops, while the bulk of the food consumed by the country was produced by private household plots. The impact of collectivization on the agricultural sector was severe. Number of cattle, horses, pigs, goats and sheep in 1929-1932. decreased by almost a third. The efficiency of agricultural labor remained quite low due to the use of command-administrative management methods and the lack of material interest of peasants in collective farm labor. As a result of complete collectivization, the transfer of financial, material, and labor resources from agriculture to industry was established. Agrarian development was determined by the needs of industry and the provision of technical raw materials, therefore the main result of collectivization was an industrial leap.