Collectivization is the process of uniting small individual peasant farms into large socialist farms based on the socialization of property.

Goals of collectivization:

1) The creation of collective farms in a short time in order to overcome the state’s dependence on individual peasant farms in grain procurements.

2) Transfer of funds from the agricultural sector of the economy to the industrial sector for the needs of industrialization.

3) Elimination of the kulaks as a class.

4) Ensuring industrialization with cheap labor due to the departure of peasants from the countryside.

5) Strengthening the influence of the state on the private sector in agriculture.

Reasons for collectivization.

By the end of the recovery period, the country's agriculture had largely reached pre-war levels. However, the level of its marketability remained lower than before the revolution, because large landowners were destroyed. Small peasant farming mainly provided for its own needs. Only large-scale farming could lead to an increase in commodity production, or an increase in marketability could be achieved through cooperation. Credit, supply and distribution, and consumer cooperatives began to spread in the countryside even before the revolution, but by 1928 there were not enough of them. The involvement of the broad masses of the peasantry in collective farms allowed the state, Firstly , implement the Marxist idea of ​​transforming small peasant farms into large socialist farms, Secondly , ensure the growth of commodity production and, Thirdly, take control of stocks of grain and other agricultural products.

The XV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in December 1927 proclaimed a course towards collectivization of the countryside. However, no deadlines or specific forms for its implementation have been established. The party leaders who spoke at the congress unanimously noted that small individual peasant farming would exist for quite a long time.

It was planned to create different forms of production cooperation:

§ Commune – a greater degree of socialization of production and everyday life.

§ Artel (collective farm) – socialization of the main means of production: land, equipment, livestock, including small livestock and poultry.

§ TOZ (land cultivation partnership) - general labor for cultivating the land.

But the grain procurement crisis of 1927/1928 changed the attitude of the party leadership towards individual peasant farming. Fierce discussions broke out in the party (see topic “Industrialization”).

1) One solution was offered I.Stalin. He spoke out for the maximum concentration of resources due to the tension of the entire economic system, pumping funds from secondary industries (agriculture, light industry).

2) N. Bukharin insisted on the balanced development of the industrial and agricultural sectors of the economy based on a market form of communication between city and countryside with the preservation of individual peasant farms. N.I. Bukharin spoke out against the imbalance and imbalance between industry and agriculture, against directive-bureaucratic planning with its tendency to organize large leaps. Bukharin believed that under the conditions of NEP, cooperation through the market would include ever wider layers of peasants in the system of economic ties and thereby ensure their growth into socialism. This should have been facilitated by the technical re-equipment of peasant labor, including the electrification of agriculture.

N.I. Bukharin and A.I. Rykov proposed the following way out of the procurement crisis of 1927/28:

§ increase in purchase prices,

§ refusal to use emergency measures,

§ a reasonable system of taxes on the village elites,

§ development of large collective farms in grain-producing regions, mechanization of agriculture.

Stalin's leadership rejected this path , regarding it as a concession to the fist.
The seizure of surplus bread began in the image and likeness of the period of “war communism. Peasants who refused to sell grain at state prices were prosecuted as speculators.

At the same time, collectivization began to accelerate ( 1928). In some places, peasants were forced to join collective farms, declaring those who resisted as enemies of Soviet power.

In 1928, the first machine and tractor stations (MTS) began to appear, which provided peasants with paid services for cultivating land using tractors. The tractor required the elimination of boundaries between peasant strips, and therefore the introduction of general plowing.

Forced collectivization.

In November 1929, at the Plenum of the Central Committee, Stalin spoke with the article “The Year of the Great Turning Point”, where he stated that a “radical change” had occurred in the collective farm movement: middle peasants had already joined collective farms, they were being created in large numbers. In reality, this was not the case, since only 6.9% of peasants joined collective farms.

After the announcement that a “radical change” had occurred pressure on peasants to force them to join the collective farm increased sharply, and “complete collectivization” began to be carried out ( 1929). Party organizations of the main grain regions, declared areas of complete collectivization (Lower and Middle Volga region, Don, North Caucasus), began to accept obligations to complete collectivization by the spring of 1930, i.e. in two to three months. The slogan “crazy pace of collectivization” appeared. In December 1929, a directive was issued to socialize livestock in areas of complete collectivization. In response, the peasants began to slaughter their livestock en masse, which caused catastrophic damage to livestock.

In January 1930, a resolution was adopted by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) “On the pace of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction.” In the main grain-producing regions of the country it was proposed to complete collectivization by the fall of 1930, in other regions - a year later. The resolution declared the main form of collective farming not the agricultural artel, but the commune (highest degree of socialization) . Unlike the artel, in the commune not only the means of production, but all property were socialized. Local organizations were encouraged to launch a collectivization competition. Naturally, in this situation, the pace of collective farm construction increased sharply. By March 1, 1930, almost 59% of households were members of collective farms.

The main means of forcing peasants to join collective farms was the threat of dispossession. Since 1928 a policy of limiting the kulaks was pursued. It was subject to increased taxes, and state lending to kulak farms was prohibited. Many wealthy peasants began to sell off their property and move to the cities.

Since 1930 The policy of dispossession begins. Dispossession - these are mass repressions against the kulaks: deprivation of property, arrests, deportations, physical destruction.

On January 30, 1930, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution “On measures to eliminate kulak farms in areas of complete collectivization.” The kulaks were divided into three groups :

Ø counter-revolutionary kulak activist – were subject to dispossession, arrest and imprisonment in camps, and often the death penalty;

Ø the largest fists – moved to remote areas;

Ø all other fists - were evicted outside the collective farm lands.

The property of the dispossessed was placed at the disposal of collective farms.

Dispossession was carried out not by the judiciary, but by the executive branch and the police, with the involvement of communists, the local poor, and worker agitators specially sent to the communist villages (“twenty-five thousand meters”). There were no clear criteria for who was considered a fist. In some cases, rural rich people, whose farms employed several farm laborers, were dispossessed; in others, the basis for dispossession was the presence of two horses in the yard. Often the campaign to “eliminate the kulaks as a class” turned into settling personal scores and the theft of the property of wealthy peasants. In the country as a whole, 12–15% of households were subject to dispossession (in some areas – up to 20%). The real share of kulak farms did not exceed 3–6%. This indicates that the main blow fell on the middle peasantry. Those dispossessed and evicted to the North were considered special settlers. From them special artels were created, the working and living conditions in which were not much different from those in the camps.

The following methods and forms of dispossession were used:

ü administrative coercion to participate in collective farm construction;

ü exclusion from cooperation and confiscation of deposits and shares in favor of the fund for the poor and farm laborers;

ü confiscation of property, buildings, means of production in favor of collective farms;

ü pitting the poor strata of the population against the wealthy peasantry by the party and Soviet authorities;

ü use of the press to organize an anti-kulak campaign.

But even such repressive measures did not always help. Forced collectivization and mass repressions during dispossession caused resistance from the peasants. In the first three months of 1930 alone, more than 2 thousand protests related to violence took place in the country: arson and breaking into collective farm barns, attacks on activists, etc. This forced the Soviet leadership to temporarily suspend collectivization. Stalin March 2, 1930 spoke in Pravda with the article “Dizziness from success”, where coercion to join a collective farm and dispossession of middle peasants were condemned as “excesses”. The blame for this was placed entirely on local workers. The Model Charter of the collective farm was also published, according to which collective farmers received the right to keep a cow, small livestock, and poultry on their personal farmstead.

On March 14, 1930, a resolution was issued by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) “On the fight against distortions of the party line in the collective farm movement.” Those who joined the collective farm under pressure received the right to return to individual farming. A mass exit from collective farms followed. By July 1930, 21% of households remained in them, compared to 59% by March 1. However, a year later the level of collectivization again reached the level of March 1930 This is explained by higher taxes on individual farmers and the difficulties they encountered in trying to get back the plots, livestock and equipment transferred to collective farms.

In 1932 - 1933, a severe famine occurred in the grain regions, which had just experienced collectivization and dispossession. 1930 was a fruitful year, which made it possible not only to supply the cities and send grain for export, but also to leave a sufficient amount of bread for collective farmers. But in 1931, the harvest turned out to be slightly below average, and the volume of grain procurements not only did not decrease, but also increased. This was explained mainly by the desire to export as much grain as possible abroad in order to obtain foreign currency for the purchase of industrial equipment. Bread was confiscated, leaving the peasants without even the necessary minimum. The same picture was repeated in 1932. The peasants, realizing that the grain would be confiscated, began to hide it. Grain procurements, primarily in the main grain regions, were disrupted.

In reply the state resorted to brutal punitive measures. In areas that failed to fulfill grain procurement targets, all available food supplies were taken away from the peasants, dooming them to starvation. Famine gripped the most fertile grain regions, for example, the Lower and Middle Volga region, Don, and Ukraine. Moreover, if the villages died from exhaustion, then in the cities there was only a slight deterioration in supply. According to various estimates, from 4 to 8 million people became victims of the famine.

In the midst of famine On August 7, 1932, the law “On the protection and strengthening of public (socialist) property” was adopted, known in common parlance as the “law of three (five) ears of corn.” Any, even the smallest, theft of state or collective farm property was henceforth punishable by execution, replaced by ten years in prison. The victims of the decree were women and teenagers who, fleeing starvation, cut ears of corn with scissors at night or picked up grain spilled during the harvest. In 1932 alone, more than 50 thousand people were repressed under this law, including more than 2 thousand who were sentenced to death.

During the famine, the collectivization process stopped. Only in 1934, when the famine ended and agricultural production began to grow again, did peasants resume joining collective farms. Constantly growing taxes on individual farmers and restrictions on their field plots left the peasants no choice. It was necessary to either join collective farms or leave the village. As a result, by 1937, 93% of peasants became collective farmers.

Collective farms were placed under strict control of Soviet and party authorities. Purchasing prices for agricultural products were set at extremely low levels. In addition, collective farms had to pay for MTS services with their products and pay a state tax in kind. As a result, collective farmers worked virtually for free. Each of them, under pain of criminal punishment, was obliged to work a certain minimum of workdays on the collective farm field. It was impossible to leave the village without the consent of the collective farm board, because peasants did not receive passports introduced in 1932. The main source was personal plots.

Results and consequences of collectivization.

1) Solving the country's socio-economic problems over a long period through agriculture and the countryside (the collective farm system is a convenient form of withdrawing maximum volumes of agricultural products, pumping funds from the countryside to industry and other sectors of the economy).

2) Elimination of the layer of independent, wealthy peasants who wanted to work without dictate from the state.

3) Destruction of the private sector in agriculture (93% of peasant farms are united into collective farms), complete nationalization of agricultural production, subordination of all aspects of rural life to the party and state leadership.

4) Abolition of the card system for food distribution in 1935.

5) Alienation of peasants from property, land and the results of their labor, loss of economic incentives to work.

6) Lack of qualified labor and youth in rural areas.

Thus, collectivization caused heavy damage to agriculture and brought down famine and repression on the peasants. In general, there was a slowdown in the growth rate of agricultural production, and a persistent food problem emerged in the country.

Methods and forms of collectivization. Since the 1930s, the peoples of Russia have undergone a series of social transformations that took place in the general context of Stalin's policies and had a largely irreversible impact on their lives. The period of dispossession, collectivization, and the struggle against traditional foundations began.

Stalin's anti-peasant policy was aimed at suppressing the sense of ownership in the peasant, reducing him to the position of a “serf.” Forced collectivization could not take into account the huge diversity of conditions of peasant farming and people's livelihoods, and in relation to national regions - the peculiarities of customs and psychology. Under the guise of collectivization, another civil war was essentially declared on the peasantry of the entire country. In the conditions of a disrupted market, the state was unable to find more effective methods for increasing the pace of grain procurements and increasing the peasants’ interest in their work.

Organizers of collective farms. 1930

The ideological justification for forced collectivization was the article by J.V. Stalin “The Year of the Great Turning Point,” published on November 7, 1929. It stated that the middle peasants, who made up the majority of the peasants, joined the collective farms. In fact, collective farms then united about 5% of peasant farms. In the Altai Mountains in October 1929, 6.3% of farms were united in collective farms, and in the spring of 1930 - 80% of farms. The Altai peasant turned out to be completely unprepared for such a “leap”. It was provoked by the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of January 5, 1930, “On the pace of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction.” The resolution outlined the implementation of complete collectivization and, on this basis, the elimination of the kulaks as a class. It was assumed that collective and state farms would provide all the necessary food and therefore it would be possible to destroy the kulaks.

It was decided to complete complete collectivization mainly by the end of 1932, and in the most important grain regions - no later than the spring of 1931. 25 thousand communists were sent to the villages, forcing peasants to join collective farms with threats

The first members of the Bolshevik collective farm, Shebalinsky aimak

repression and dispossession. 14 people arrived in Gorny Altai - twenty-five thousand people from Leningrad, 10 people - workers from Ivanovo-Voskresensk. In the region, the process of collectivization was directly related to the transfer of the nomadic Altai population to a settled state, which further aggravated social tensions. Administratively, without regard for economic feasibility and the interests of the population, giant collective farms were established. Dozens of miles away, without any preparatory work, Altai farms were gathered in one place.

Mass slaughter of livestock began. By March 15, 1930, the number of cattle in eight regions had decreased by 43, sheep by 35, and horses by 28%. About 150 Kazakhs migrated to China; in some places, collective farm organizers were killed and collective farm buildings were set on fire. The state continued to tighten policies. The so-called “dekulakization” destroyed a great many real owners of the land and undermined the faith of millions of peasants in socialism. Mass skirmishers expropriations Often those for whom the confiscated goods were intended spoke. It became simply profitable to be considered poor, because poverty was declared a class “dignity.” Wealthy peasants, who were, in fact, the breadwinners of the country, were usually classified as kulaks. Poor and middle peasants were arbitrarily enrolled and dispossessed into kulaks - all those who resisted forced collectivization. According to modern estimates, about a million peasant farms were dispossessed. In the region in 1929-1935. According to approximate data, more than 1.5 thousand people were arrested and exiled. Of the 5,750 people arrested in 1929-1946. peasants accounted for 3,773 people.

“... In the spring of 1930, when Anna A.’s family was deported, she already had two children. For the rest of her life she remembered the day when the village activists came to them. They were ordered to quickly gather. Anna and her husband began to pack their things, taking only clothes. And fellow villagers scurried around - poor people, activists, taking away, simply stealing food and things. They managed to leave their eldest son Peter with relatives, and took one-year-old Alexandra with them.

They were transported for a long time. We met on the way. There were people from Ust-Koksa, Ust-Kan, Kosh-Agach. We moved further and further north. They were transported along the Ob River on barges to Kolpashevo, a city in the very center of the Tomsk region, and then along the Ket River to Bely Yar. But they were dropped off not in the village, but in the remote taiga. What is the Tomsk taiga? First of all, these are swamps and swamps. In winter there was snow and -50 degree frosts, and in summer there were clouds of mosquitoes from which there was no escape.

Even the guards did not accompany them; the eldest of the repressed was appointed and the final destination was named. Having arrived at the place, everyone who could hold an ax in their hands, both men and women, set about building barracks. No one drove them, they themselves had to, using the “rights of collective farms,” with their own hands, build their own housing and utility rooms, uproot the forest, and drain the swamps.

A year later, only half of those who arrived remained alive. Old people and children especially died in large numbers. Anna's husband and newborn son died here. The dead were placed in a large hole and, when it was full, they were covered.

When the forces of these families built barracks, barnyards, warehouses, cleared up the forest and sown the land with wheat and barley, all the constant attributes of violence appeared - constant surveillance, prohibition of exit and movement, daily labor and food standards - everything, like in a real concentration camp. Anna worked as a milkmaid. Every day she poured several buckets of milk into flasks, not daring to bring her little daughter even a glass. And then the war began... Anna and her family were able to return to their homeland only in 1957.”

At the beginning of March 1930, J.V. Stalin published the article “Dizziness from Success.” It condemned excesses in collective farm construction, although what he called excesses constituted the essence of his agrarian policy. The leader laid the blame for these “excesses” on local leaders, and many were punished, although they were only executors of instructions from above. The artificially created collective farms immediately disintegrated. The level of collectivization in Oirotia dropped from 90% during the period of “complete collectivization” to 10% by the beginning of April 1930. But in the fall of 1930, the collectivization campaign resumed with the same force.

As of January 1932, the level of collectivization in the region was 49.7%. There is no doubt that collectivization ruined the village. Harvests fell to their lowest level since 1921, and livestock numbers were halved. Only in the 1950s. The country's agriculture has reached the level of NEP times.

Documentary evidence:

From the decision of the Shebalinsky aimak party committee “On the organizational and economic management of collective farms of the Beshpeltir village council”

The organization of collective farms of the nomadic and semi-nomadic population in the village council began in 1931/32. In 1933, 75% of poor and middle peasant farms were collectivized. But the weak leadership of the party cell and the aimkolkhoz union in the organizational and economic strengthening of collective farms led to poor organization of labor. Collective farms are dwarf. The collective farm “Kyzyl Cholmon” has 11 farms, the “Dyany Del” - 23, the collective farm “Five-Year Plan in 4 Years” - 27, and the “Kyzyl Oirot” - 62 farms. There are 185 able-bodied people on all 4 collective farms. Income in 1932 on the collective farm “Kyzyl Oirot” for 1 collective farmer was 78 rubles, on the collective farm “Five-Year Plan in 4 Years” - 90.72 kopecks, on the collective farm “Kyzyl Cholmon” - 130 rubles. Despite all possible assistance from aimak organizations, collective farms have not become stronger economically and there is no prospect for their further growth. Therefore, based on the consent of these collective farms and collective farmers, a decision was made to organize one collective farm, “Kyzyl Oirot”.

Results and consequences of collectivization. Collectivization gave rise to mass famine. Researchers have proven that the cause of the famine that struck the main breadbasket of the Siberian region - Altai - was not only natural phenomena (drought that incinerated fields and meadows), but also socio-economic processes and, above all, collectivization. The famine was a natural result of accelerated transformations in agriculture and the forced confiscation of grain from peasants in order to fulfill unrealistic procurement plans. Trying to survive, the peasants were forced to secretly carry away spikelets and grain from collective farm fields and storage facilities. But in 1932, a law appeared, popularly called the “law of five ears of corn.” He punished any theft of collective farm property with imprisonment for a term of at least 10 years or execution by shooting with confiscation of property. Tens of thousands of people were convicted under this law. It was forbidden to even mention the famine. The authorities needed him to break the resistance of the peasantry.

Strengthening collective farms. In February 1935, the Charter of the agricultural artel was adopted. In accordance with its provisions, the regional authorities adopted a resolution to exempt 114 national collective farms of the Altai Mountains from mandatory supplies of grain and potatoes to the state in 1935. Collective farms in the Kosh-Agach and Ulagansky districts were completely, and in other areas, partially exempted from milk supplies. They began to issue sheep, cows, and horses for workdays. However, despite the benefits provided, many collective farms remained economically weak. Collective farmers, receiving livestock for workdays, often slaughtered it for food needs. Every tenth collective farmer's farm had no livestock at all.

The difficult situation in the Oirot village forced the government to adopt in 1936 a decree “On the procedure for distributing livestock according to workdays in Oirotia,” according to which the following principles of remuneration were established: collective farmers who did not fulfill the livestock development plan were allowed to distribute 15% of the amount saved among workdays offspring of sheep and cattle. Collective farms that fulfilled the plan received the right to distribute 40% of the young animals among workdays, and in case of overfulfillment, they were allowed to allocate an additional 50% of the offspring of young animals received in excess of the plan.

In 1938, more than 85% of the region's peasant farms were collectivized and 322 collective farms and 411 state farms were created. In agriculture, 48 tractors, 28 cars, and 16 combines were used. The average sown area of ​​one collective farm was 156 hectares. In 1939, the region was included in the list of high mountain regions. This circumstance allowed the replacement of grain with meat when settling with the state for obligatory supplies. In July 1939, a new principle for their calculation was introduced. The old one was based on the sowing plan communicated to the collective farm and the actual number of livestock, while the new one was based on the amount of land assigned to the collective farm: arable land, vegetable gardens, pastures. This hectare-by-hectare principle was recognized to create a stable base for the calculation of government procurement. With the introduction of the new regulation, the level of grain deductions from the gross harvest increased, and the total volume of procurement increased significantly.

Breeding of deer and deer continued successfully in the region. Thus, in 1940, there were about 6 thousand animals on deer breeding state farms compared to 4.1 thousand at the beginning of 1938. This year, the Shebalinsky deer state farm fulfilled the plan for the delivery of antler products by 116.6% for deer and 121.8% for deer, and 99.5% of the products were sold as the first grade.

In the region's livestock farming, despite the organization of production on the basis of public means and tools, the introduction of collective work methods and other innovations of socialism, extensive manual labor and transhumance livestock keeping still prevailed. To successfully conduct this most labor-intensive industry, to use technical means, it was necessary to widely use the economic experience of the original livestock-raising population, to take into account the factors of the historically developed features of agriculture in the national regions of Siberia. However, all this was declared “relics of the past” and was completely destroyed. Many unresolved difficulties in the livestock industry are explained precisely by a disdainful attitude towards the people's economic experience.

However, even under these conditions, individual farms and workers achieved very good results. .

Collective farm grooms with a stallion of the English breed.
The small gold medal of the All-Russian Agricultural Exhibition (VSKHV) was awarded to M.U. Sogonokov - herder of the Kalinin collective farm of the Ulagan aimag, N.V. Bytysov - shepherd of the Kirov collective farm of the Ust-Kan aimag, N.N. Tikhonov - deputy head of the support fruit growing center named after Michurin. More than 70 people were included in the VSKhV Book of Honor. Among them were experienced farm managers M.I. Yabykova, O.M. Kozlova, field farmer A.S. Kazantseva. So, the milkmaid of the collective farm named after. VII Congress of Soviets U.K. Olkova, using new methods of milking cows of a local unimproved breed, milked 1648 liters at a rate of 1000 liters. Tana Marcina, a shepherd at the Tenginsky sheep farm in 1940, had amazing achievements: she received 127 lambs from 100 queens and managed to preserve them completely. And the shearing of wool in her flock amounted to 4 kg per sheep (later this worker became a Hero of Socialist Labor). In the harsh conditions of the Kosh-Agach region, with year-round pasture keeping of sheep, the shepherd of the Kyzyl Maany collective farm, Ch. Koshkonbaev, during 1939-1940. retained all the livestock - a flock of 600 heads of high-breed sheep.

In 1940, with an average yield of 12.7 centners per hectare, individual farms and teams achieved great results. Thus, S.N. Abramov’s unit of the Kirov collective farm in the Ust-Koksa aimag harvested 30 centners of oats per hectare. In the Oirot-Tur aimag, the work of the links of K.A. Podolyuk and Ya.I. Zyablitsky from the collective farm “Farmer” was indicative. They received a grain harvest of 28 quintals per hectare. Considering the difficult conditions for crop production, one can assume how much work it took the teams to achieve such results. The best practices of these livestock breeders were widely promoted through regional newspapers and seminars. Party and Komsomol organizations carried out enormous work in this regard.

At the harvest

The financial situation of collective farmers in the late 1930s. Until mid-1939, there was a system of procurement prices that was unprofitable for livestock farms (which were the majority of collective farms in the Altai Mountains). It did not create material incentives for collective farmers. In July 1939, new legal standards for livestock production were brought to the collective farms of the region: milk yield - 1200 liters, wool shearing - 2.2 kg, from 100 sheep - 90 lambs, from 100 cows - 80 calves. According to the implementation of the 1940 plan, Gorny Altai was ranked among the best in the country. Milk yield was 3113 liters, wool yield was 2.8 kg. At the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition, the region was represented by 36 collective farms, 48 ​​farms, and 335 leading producers.

In general, agriculture in the region in the late 1930s and early 1940s. developed unstably. As throughout the country, the consequences of the voluntarism of the collectivization period were felt, the most important lesson of which was the awareness of the futility and danger of “emergency” in agriculture.

Pay on collective farms was lower than on state farms. For one workday it was issued in 1940: 1.75 rubles, 1.42 kg of grain, 0.04 kg of potatoes. The cost of a workday was low, which was often the reason for non-compliance with the mandatory minimum workday, established in May 1939 at 80 workdays. Additional charges were provided in the amount of 2-3 workdays for each centner of grain and write-off of workdays for poor work. In 1940, the average annual output of an able-bodied collective farmer in the region was 274 workdays. On state farms, the average salary was 342 rubles. The work of machine operators, livestock specialists and agronomists was more highly paid. Despite this, state farms also experienced a labor shortage, especially during the harvesting and fodder periods.

Personal farming provided the peasant with products that he did not receive on the collective farm or received in scanty quantities. According to the Charter of the Agricultural Artel of 1935, collective farmers could have a plot of land for personal use, the size of which ranged from 0.25 to 0.5 hectares, depending on the area, on which it was allowed to grow potatoes, vegetables, and fruits. Depending on the region, the number of livestock for personal use was determined. In livestock-raising areas, especially nomadic and semi-nomadic livestock farming, it was allowed to have from 4 to 8 cows, from 30 to 50 heads of sheep, an unlimited number of poultry and even horses and camels. In reality, collective farmers did not have such a quantity of livestock.

In 1940, the government established mandatory standards for the supply of products obtained from private households (meat, milk, wool) to the state. Agricultural tax rates were also determined: for Shebalinsky and Ongudaysky districts - 47 rubles, for Kosh-Agachsky and Ulagansky - 31, Elikmanarsky and Ust-Kansky - 44, Turachaksky and Choysky - 45, Oirot-Tursky and Ust-Koksinsky - 49. 49 farms were exempted from paying the tax based on decisions of the executive committees of the aimak councils due to their low supply of livestock. Of course, there were more such farms, but the number of preferential farms was limited.

As of January 1, 1938, out of 17,032 farms in the region, 2,323 did not have cows, and 5,901 farms were without sheep. The state provided all possible assistance, allowing collective farms to sell in 1938-1939. for the poor there are about 1,300 heads of cattle, 4 thousand lambs, 7 thousand piglets.

However, the general level of material security of the people was low. This was typical for the whole country. On the eve of the war, the country experienced a food and industrial crisis, which was generated by a whole complex of reasons. The main ones should be the undermining of the economy as a result of accelerated industrialization and forced collectivization, as well as the creation of an economic model practically devoid of material incentives to work and based on administrative dictate. The immediate reasons that aggravated the situation at the turn of 1930-1940 were accelerated militarization and mass repression. Rationing of basic products and manufactured goods in open trade remained even after the abolition of rationing in 1935-1936.

However, economic development did not stop. There was a gradual transformation of the local handicraft industry into a more technically developed and diversified production industry. Gorny Altai had great potential for the development and expansion of production related to both the processing of agricultural products and the development of deposits of mercury and marble. In the pre-war years, their development was just beginning. However, the region still remained predominantly an agricultural area with a focus on livestock farming. The workers of this industry achieved good results under the most difficult conditions. However, many problems in the lives of people and the economy of the region could not be solved due to the outbreak of the war.

The consequences of mistakes in carrying out socio-economic reforms are making themselves felt even now. The centuries-old structure of the village was broken, the peasant worker was alienated from the land. Faith in the unprecedented possibilities of socialism, based on the will of the Communist Party and the enthusiasm of the working people, turned into impoverishment and chronic shortages. The economic and military power of the state was created at the cost of the welfare of the people.

Questions and tasks:

1. Based on knowledge from the course of national history, answer the question: what were the reasons and goals of the collectivization of agriculture?

2. Using documentary materials, prove the forced and coercive nature of collectivization.

3. What are the results and consequences of collectivization for the further development of the region and the country as a whole?

4. Based on the family archive, memories of eyewitnesses of the events, materials from the school local history museum, prepare a written work about the progress of collectivization in your area, village, about the history of the creation of a collective farm in your native village.

5. Work in groups. Answer the questions: a) was there an alternative to collectivization? b) why was collectivization accompanied by dispossession?

6. Develop a project “The tragic fate of the Gorno-Altai peasantry in the 1930s”, present its results using documentary sources.

Introduction

The period of collectivization of agriculture in the USSR is rightfully considered one of the darkest pages in the history of not only the Soviet state, but, perhaps, the entire history of Russia. The price of millions of lives of ordinary people was paid for overcoming the country's industrial backwardness from the leading world powers in the shortest possible time. The death toll alone, according to some estimates, reached 8 million people, and how many were ruined or taken to slave labor camps is incalculable. Until the end of the eighties, this topic was not made public, since it was completely classified, and only during perestroika the scale of the tragedy was revealed. And to this day, the debate does not stop, and the white spots are still not painted over. This is what determines its relevance.

Thus, the purpose of my work is to study in more detail the progress of collectivization. Consideration of the reasons for its implementation, objectives and methods used.

To achieve this goal, I put forward a number of tasks. Firstly, study thematic literature, works of historians, the Internet, encyclopedias, etc. Secondly, analyze the information received. Thirdly, try to understand the essence of collectivization, its tasks, as well as the main methods. Fourth, chart the course of collectivization in chronological order.

Reasons and goals for collectivization of agriculture

1.1 The essence of collectivization

Collectivization is the process of uniting individual peasant farms into collective farms. A profound revolutionary transformation not only of the countryside and agriculture, but of the entire country. It affected the entire economy, the social structure of society, demographic processes and urbanization.

The chronological framework of the collectivization process varies from different sources. The main period is from 1927 to 1933. Although in some areas of the country, such as: Western Ukraine, western Belarus, Moldova, the Baltic states and other later annexed regions, it continued until the 50s. In the latter case, it was carried out taking into account the experience of mass collectivization in Russia, and exactly the same principle, therefore we will consider only the events of the late 20s and early 30s of the twentieth century.

1.2 The state of agriculture before the period of collectivization

The Land Code of the RSFSR was adopted in September 1922. The Law “On Labor Land Use” became its component part.

The Code “forever abolished the right of private ownership of land,” subsoil, water and forests within the RSFSR. All agricultural lands constitute a single state land fund, administered by the People's Commissariat of Agriculture and its local authorities. The right of direct use was granted to labor landowners and their associations, urban settlements, government agencies and enterprises. The remaining lands are at the direct disposal of the People's Commissariat of Land. The purchase, sale, will, donation, and pledge of land were prohibited, and violators were subject to criminal penalties.

Lease of land was allowed for a period of no more than one crop rotation. At the same time, only labor lease was allowed: “no one can receive under a lease agreement for his use more land than he is able to cultivate in addition to his allotment using his own farm.”

V.I. Lenin called, in particular, for the development of the cooperative movement. One of the forms of cooperative farming was partnerships for joint cultivation of land (TOZ). They played an important role in the development of socialist relations in the village. The state provided great assistance to the collectives, issuing agricultural machines, seeds, and various materials on credit.

Almost simultaneously with the TOZs, communes arose. They were created on lands that previously belonged to landowners. The state transferred residential and farm buildings, and equipment to the peasants for eternal use.

By 1927, it was possible to exceed the pre-war level of acreage and productivity. However, growth did not stop.

1.3 Reasons for the need for reforms

Despite the noticeable growth of the economy in general, and agriculture in particular, the top party leadership, and I.V. himself. Stalin was not happy with this for several reasons. Firstly, this is the low growth rate of production. Since the party set a course to overcome the technical backwardness of the Soviet Union from Western countries, for this reason forced industrialization began, strengthening the industrial potential of the country, in connection with this the urbanization of the population sharply increased, which led to a sharp increase in demand for food products and industrial crops, and as a result, the load on the agricultural sector grew much faster than its own growth in commodity production, and as a result, without fundamental changes, the village will no longer be able to provide for either the city or itself, which will lead to a crisis and mass starvation. The creation of collective farms, state farms, and other large associations made it possible to manage the entire agricultural sector centrally much more effectively, rather than scattered small private households, as was the case before. For example, in private farming, industrial crops had very little distribution. With such centralization, it was more convenient to quickly industrialize agriculture, i.e. move from manual labor to mechanized labor. Another reason was the following: collectivization reduced the number of intermediaries between the producer and the consumer, which reduced the final cost of the product. Lastly, the very idea of ​​the NEP rooted private property, and commodity-money relations, and the gap between the poor and the rich. This was contrary to the ideals of communism. Consequently, ideological subtext was present in this reform, although not in the foreground, but it will play its role more than once in further events.

There were also external reasons. In the late 20s and early 30s, relations with the British Empire were very strained. Primarily due to the division of Iran. And carrying out a revolution in Afghanistan, thereby getting close to the main colony - India. In the east there was a threat from a rising Japan, which had already captured northern China and was approaching the Soviet border. Also threatening was the fact that the Nazis, who were ideological enemies of the USSR, came to power in Germany. Thus, a very tense situation developed, and a real threat of war, almost along the entire length of the Soviet borders.

Lesson topic: "Collectivization of agriculture in the USSR"
Lesson type: lesson on learning new material
Class: for 9th or 11th grades.
Lesson objectives:
1. Find out about the state of agriculture and the situation of peasants on the eve of collectivization;
2. Identify the reasons for collectivization, stages and results;
3. Recreate an objective picture of collectivization through historical documents;
4. Know the concepts of “collectivization”, “dekulakization”, “fists”

Lesson objectives: 1. Educational: to facilitate students’ assimilation of basic factual and conceptual material about the collectivization of agriculture;
2. Educational: study the events that led to the collectivization of agriculture, the progress of collectivization, the significance and consequences; continue training in working with documents of various types; continue to develop the ability to analyze real historical events and draw conclusions.
3. Educational: formation of a developed, socially active creative independent personality; continue the formation of students’ independent beliefs as the basis of their worldview in the process of cognition.
4. Developmental: development of the ability to argue and draw conclusions (textbook text, documents, memoirs); developing listening and listening skills; developing the ability to apply acquired knowledge in non-standard situations; development of abstract and visual-figurative thinking; activation of cognitive activity in the group.

Equipment:

On each desk there are bags with documents for working in groups, in pairs, or independently.

Computer presentation.

Textbook.

Methods used in the lesson:

problem-based learning;

differentiated learning;

creative task;

method of mutual control and self-control;

independent work (working with fragments of documents).

Lesson structure:

Organizing time;

Homework checking stage;

Stage of learning new material;

Stage of fixing the material;

Lesson reflection;

Homework.

Lesson plan:

1. Organizational moment;
2. Repetition and questioning;
3. Statement of the problem, definition of lesson objectives;
4. Studying a new topic:

reasons, objectives and methods of collectivization;

Stages of collectivization;

“The year of the great turning point” and dispossession;

“Dizziness from success”;

Famine 1932-1933;

Results of collectivization.

5. Lesson reflection;
6. Homework.

During the classes:

I . Organizing time: Greeting students. Marking absent students.

II . Repetition and questioning: - What is industrialization?
- When did industrialization begin in the USSR?
- What is the main task of industrialization?
- What can you say about the Stakhanov movement?
- Where did the construction of the first five-year plans take place? Show on the map.
- What are the main sources of funds for industrialization?
- What social problems is the country facing?
- What were the results of industrialization, highlight the positive and negative?

III . Statement of the problem, definition of lesson objectives:

In what way and on what basis was the collectivization of peasant farms carried out?
what role it played in the life of the country, in the destinies of millions of people.
- The task of our lesson is to recreate the most complete and objective picture of collectivization: to find out how this profound, complex and contradictory revolution in the life of the village actually took place, what immediate and long-term consequences it led to; think about how to ultimately evaluate the essence of collectivization.

IV . Learning a new topic:

Teacher's story:

Today in class we will thoroughly discuss one of the key problems of the 20-30s.XXcentury - the problem of complete collectivization and dispossession of the peasantry. We will try to determine our attitude to this problem, we will try to establish whether the means of collectivization corresponded to its goals. The process of transforming peasants from individual workers and owners into a class of socialist society.

Since 1926, the Soviet government has adopted a policy of “building socialism in a single country.” According to the Bolshevik Party, the USSR found itself surrounded by enemy capitalist states. The question was acute: “What does a country need to survive surrounded by enemy states?” It became obvious about the need to develop the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) and economic independence.
- But how to achieve this independence? It was necessary to develop heavy industry, carry out industrialization, and turn the USSR into a major industrial power!
- But where can we get money and resources for industrial development? The village was considered not only as a source of food, but also as the most important source of funds for the development of industrialization. Consequently, industrialization in the USSR could only be carried out due to internal forces - the exploitation of the peasantry.

What was the peasantry like during these years?

Document No. 1 “Historical information on the state of the peasantry”:
“By 1926-1927, 80% of the population in the USSR lived in rural areas. Agriculture provided more than half of the country's income.The main source of funds for industrialization was the export of agricultural products abroad. Agriculture was a small-peasant economy, peasants acted as small owners and were the main producers. Peasants, due to the strict government policies, were not interested in selling agricultural products to the state, since prices were low. Grain procurement crises often arose in the country, which jeopardized industrialization plans.”

Document No. 2 "Grain crisis" : “In 1927, there was a sharp shortage of industrial goods to exchange for grain. Low state prices for agricultural products and crop failure led to a reduction in the supply of grain and other products to the city. The townspeople are buying up food, the peasants are hiding bread. Queues and empty counters are becoming a common sight. The state is taking extraordinary measures - 30 thousand party members were sent to the villages to “extort” grain, Stalin himself went to the agricultural regions of Siberia for the first and last time. Local party workers were allowed to take emergency measures against bread concealers - criminal sanctions. Stalin believed that the crisis was caused by a violation of economic proportions: the weak peasant is a saboteur fist. Stalin proposes to devote all resources to the reconstruction of agriculture into collective farms, i.e. collective farms, more consistent with the socialist ideal. Another point of view belonged to N.I. Bukharin, who was not against collective farms, but for a long time the basis of agriculture should be individual peasant farms.”

Teacher's story:

In 1927, there was no bread available, there was practically nothing to sell abroad, and industrialization plans were in jeopardy. One of the solutions to the problem was the creation of collective farms, because It was easier to collect grain from collective farms than from individual peasants.In other words, the unification of small-peasant farms into a large cooperative farm, the nationalization of peasant property and its transformation into a collective farm. This phenomenon was called “Collectivization”.

Collectivization - the process of uniting small single peasant farms into large cooperative socialist farms (collective farms), an integral part of the party's policy for the socialist transformation of society.

In 1927 -XVCongress of the CPSU (b)- determined that collectivization is the main task of the party in the countryside.

Working with the textbook (as well as with the material at the presentation):

What were the reasons for collectivization?

Reasons for collectivization:

The state's need for huge funds for industrialization.

Small private peasant farms could not supply the state with sufficient quantities of agricultural products.

Grain procurement crisis of 1927

During the years of the NEP, the number of rural bourgeoisie - kulaks - increased in the village, which contradicted the socialist ideology.

What were the goals of collectivization?

Collectivization objectives:

Transfer funds from villages to cities for industrialization.

Provide industrial centers with cheap food products and raw materials for enterprises.

Transformation of the peasantry into an obedient, manageable mass.

Destruction of the kulaks as a hostile class.

Let us note the main stages of collectivization:

First stage: 1928 – 1929 - preparation for complete collectivization.

Second stage: 1929 – 1932 - complete collectivization of agriculture.

Third stage: 1933 – 1937 – socialist transformation of agriculture.

Independent work with the document:

Document No. 3« From I. Stalin’s speech at the conference of Marxist agrarians”:“To attack the kulaks means to break the kulaks and liquidate them as a class. Outside of these goals, the offensive is declamation, scratching, empty talk, anything but a real Bolshevik offensive. To attack the kulaks means to prepare for action and to hit the kulaks, but to hit them in such a way that they can no longer rise to their feet. This is what we Bolsheviks call a real offensive.”

What is the purpose of collectivization in our country according to I. Stalin?
- When was collectivization supposed to end?

Teacher's story:

In May 1929VThe Congress of Soviets approved the collectivization plan. On November 7, 1929, an article by Stalin was published in the newspaper Pravda."The Year of the Great Breakthrough" , which talked about the timing of collectivization. Throughout the country, the process of creating collective farms has begun, “collective farms” and “state farms” are being created.

Kolkhoz - a production association of peasants for collective farming based on the socialization of the means of production in our country from 1917 to the early 1990s.

State Farm (short for Soviet Economy) is a state agricultural enterprise in the USSR. The state farm was controlled by the state.

All peasants were required to join collective farms. They had to hand over all their livestock and agricultural implements to the collective farm. The lands of peasants were also united into single collective farm fields. Now the peasants did not have to personally own anything; everything became common.
- Many peasants did not want to go to collective farms.
- Why do you think?
- Remember what categories (layers) of the peasantry existed?
- Which category of the peasantry was against joining collective farms and state farms? Why?
- Which category of the peasantry was the first to respond to the government’s proposal? Why?
- Which layer of the peasantry did the Soviet government count on the property of?
- Who will the authorities rely on in carrying out collectivization?
Game “I’ll Join a Collective Farm” (for 18 people; 3 cards – fists, 6 cards – middle peasants, 10 cards – poor people):

6 cows

15 sheep

3-5 horses

40 chickens

35 geese

8 pigs

Inventory (full set)

Large plot of land

Big and rich house

3 cows

8 sheep

1-2 horses

30 chickens

15 geese

6 pigs

Inventory (partially)

Decent plot of land

Decent enough house

1-2 cows (not always)

4 sheep (not always)

1 horse (not always)

10 chickens (not always)

5 geese (not always)

1-3 pigs (not always)

Inventory (meager)

Small plot of land (or overgrown)

A modest house.

Teacher's story:

The government decided to force those who did not voluntarily join collective farms. By 1930, 50% of peasant farms were registered on collective farms. To provide “assistance” to the local authorities, 25 thousand urban communists (“twenty-five thousanders”) were sent to the villages; they forced the peasants to join collective farms. The poor peasants were the first to join collective farms; if the middle peasants were still hesitant, the kulaks opposed it. So, simultaneously with collectivization, another process began - “dekulakization”.

Dispossession - destruction of the wealthy peasantry in order to obtain funds for collectivization.

At the end of December 1929, Stalin announced the end of the NEP and the transition to politics"liquidation of the kulaks as a class." Since this layer of the peasantry contradicted the ideas of socialism and did not want to voluntarily join collective farms. But there were other reasons. Soon it was forbidden to accept families of kulaks into collective farms.

Let us remember, once again, who are the “kulaks”?

Fists - wealthy peasants who use hired labor, as well as those engaged in the resale of finished agricultural goods, usury, and intermediation.

Independent work with the document:

Document No. 4 “Dekulakization”:

« Dispossession had the goal of providing collective farms with a material base. From 1929 to mid. 1930 More than 320 thousand peasant farms were dispossessed, property worth 75 million rubles. was transferred to collective farms. There was no clear definition of a kulak: these were those who used hired labor, and those who had 2 cows, 2 horses, and a good house. The middle peasant was often dispossessed; the term “subkulak” was introduced to justify it. Over the course of 1.5-2 years, the authorities, with the help of the OGPU, removed all dangerous layers from the village. The rate of dispossession is 5-7%, in reality they dispossessed 15-20%. The kulaks were divided into categories with corresponding penalties: the first category - the organizers of terrorist attacks and uprisings - were imprisoned in concentration camps or shot, the second category of the richest kulaks and semi-landowners - were evicted to remote areas, the third category - the majority of kulak households - were resettled within the region, but for collective farm lands. 25 thousand party members were sent to help local authorities to organize collective farms. My grandfather told me how they signed up for the collective farm in Yaroslavskaya: three people came from the city, organized a meeting, put a revolver on the table and began to encourage people to sign up...»

« On June 18, 1929, from the village of Ramenskaya, M. Sholokhov writes to Stalin: “They are putting pressure on the fist, but the middle peasants are already crushed... The people are going wild... And as a result of skillfully applied pressure on the fist, there is a fact (a monstrous fact!) on the territory of the neighboring district of formed political gangs. It got to the point that chickens began to be socialized... in one village, men... slaughtered 125 chickens and ate the chickens. At least eat chicken for the last time." Party workers and commissioners resorted to the following persuasion: Collective farmer M.V. Nesterenko from the Kirov collective farm recalls: “Which number will you choose 24 or 350?” asks the commissioner. The father is silent.. – “I see you pretended not to understand. Let me explain: on a collective farm, a canopy costs 24 rubles a year. If you don’t go to the collective farm, pay 350 rubles right away.... In the morning if you don’t come, we will come with an inventory.”.

What was the purpose of dispossession?
- How did this process go?
- Which layer of the peasantry suffered from this policy?

Analysis of statistical data:

Analyze the chart data. Was there a real kulak threat?

Document No. 5 “Dekulakization through the eyes of an eyewitness”:
“They drove all the cattle out of the yard and cleaned out all the barns and granaries. They threw everything out of the chests in the house, took away all the pillows and blankets. The activists immediately began trying on their father’s jackets and shirts. They opened all the floorboards in the house and looked for hidden money and, possibly, gold. They began to pull off my grandmother's sheepskin coat. She died immediately. For three days, while the deceased lay in the house, representatives came to us more than once, each time taking with them something that they had not taken earlier, be it a poker or a shovel. While they were rummaging in the house, my mother quietly put our last bag of millet into the coffin, under the head of the dead grandmother. The activists, not finding money in the house, began looking for it in the coffin of the deceased. They found a bag of millet and took it with them.”

How did the dispossession take place according to an eyewitness?

Working with the textbook (as well as with the material at the presentation):

By what means and methods did the Soviet government fight the kulaks?

Means and mmethods of fighting with fists:

Administrative coercion to join collective farms.

Confiscation of property, buildings, funds in favor of the collective farm.

Eviction of the kulaks from their homes.

Application of repressive measuresstrong measures (up to execution) against the peasants, openthose calling to join the collective farm.

Student message « How to produce resettlement of kulak families":

“How was the resettlement of kulak families carried out? Men arrived in the sparsely populated region to build housing. In the first case, “hunger norms” were issued. People had to have their own equipment and at least one horse per 10 households. To transport people, the People's Commissariat of Railways had to allocate 172 trains of 50 cars each. A dispossessed peasant arrived at the collection point with a personal card (full name, year and place of birth, nationality, family, occupation, criminal record, political characteristics, etc.). For these points, collection points of military registration and enlistment offices, camps of military units, etc. were used. The duties of the OGPU included organizing points, providing security, and keeping records of kulaks. The carriages were equipped with a stove, windows, and 3 buckets. There was a headman and an assistant per carriage to ensure order. At the station, the carriage doors were tightly closed, but were opened slightly during movement. The train commandant could conduct searches without warning, and in case of escape, the guards would open fire. The assembly points and trains were filled to capacity with the repressed, and the local authorities kept demanding and demanding trains to evict the kulaks.In cold, unheated carriages with a minimum amount of household belongings, thousands and thousands of people were transported to remote areas of the Urals, Siberia, and Kazakhstan. Those who were considered the most active “anti-Soviet” were sent to prison.”

Working with ditties as a historical source:

Some ditties promoted the positive system of Soviet society, but in most cases the humor reflected the pain, hopelessness and despair of peasants who were deprived of property, deported, and dispossessed. Despite the seeming hopelessness of the life of collective farmers in the early 30s, many peasants were convinced of the advantage of collective labor.

What conclusion can be drawn from the given ditties about collectivization and dispossession?

You torture cattle with a plow, You're hunching your back, but you're not full, And on the collective farm we have a car We will buy together, on credit

“They speak badly on the collective farm, And it’s good on the collective farm, Before lunch we are looking for a plow, and from lunch we are looking for a wheel.”

“I have nothing to grieve, I plow from morning to evening And for these workdays Only some sticks.”

“We went to the collective farm, comrade,” There were pleated skirts. And now we're showing off Patches on the back"

“He lives well, Who is registered as poor - Bread is served on the stove, Like a lazy cat"

“I was walking through the forest and saw a miracle: Two peasants are sitting. Teeth black, rotten, They eat horse tail"

“I walked through the river - The ducks quacked. The poor went to the collective farm - The fists began to cry"

“There is a birch tree on the mountain, There is a snowdrift under the birch tree. Bolshevik collective farms The kulak was driven into a coffin!”

“Like on the Rakhmanov collective farm The gelding was killed. We ate intestines for three weeks, Lenin was commemorated"

“Get up, Lenin, die, Stalin, We will not live on a collective farm...”

Teacher's story:

Dispossession deprived the village of its most enterprising, independent peasants. Their fate should have served as an example to those who did not want to voluntarily go to the collective farm. Kulaks were evicted with their families, including infants and old people. In many areas, 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, destroyed livestock and equipment.On March 2, 1930, Stalin’s article was published in Pravda"Dizziness from success." He placed all the blame for the current situation on the performers, local workers, saying that“It is impossible to plant collective farms 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. However, soon the process of forced collectivization resumed and peasants were again forced to join collective farms.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 rise in the collective farm movement.” In September 1931, collective peasant farms already united 60% of peasant households, in 1934 - 75%.

Collaboration with a document:

Document No. 6 “Criticism of dispossession”:
“...Dekulakization itself often takes an undesirable form: instead of confiscation of the kulak’s means of production, “dekulakization under a broom” occurs. When they take away all household items, including underwear, icons, sauerkraut..."

What methods of collectivization are criticized in this document?

Teacher's story:

The situation in the village was more difficult than in the city. It was looked upon primarily as a supplier of cheap grain and a source of labor. The state constantly increased the grain procurement rate and took away almost half of the harvest from collective farms. In February 1935, peasants were allowed to have a personal plot, one cow, two calves, a pig with piglets, and up to 10 sheep. Individual farms began to supply products to the market. The card system was abolished. The Soviet village came to terms with the collective farm system. Passports were introduced in the country, which peasants were not entitled to. In fact, peasants were assigned to their place of birth and were deprived of freedom of movement and choice of occupations. The result of collectivization was the indifference of collective farmers to socialized property and the results of their own labor. The main goal of the policy of complete collectivization was to create conditions for the transfer of funds from the countryside for the needs of industrialization.

Collaboration with a document:

Document No. 8 “Famine 1932-1933”:

« The most tragic page in the history of collectivization was the famine of 1932-1933. In general, the harvests of these years were only slightly below the long-term average and did not in themselves threaten famine. But for the purchase of industrial equipment, currency was required. It could only be obtained in exchange for bread. The grain procurements of 1931 doomed the peasants to starvation. By the summer of 1932, the villages of the grain belt of Russia and Ukraine, after a half-starved winter, found themselves weakened and exhausted. In the still unripe fields, “barbers” appeared - peasants who cut the ears of corn with scissors; When the cleaning began, the “nesuns” appeared. Grain was carried from the threshing floors in pockets and in the bosom.

On August 7, 1932, a law on the protection of socialist property, written in Stalin’s own hand, was adopted. He introduced the highest measure of social protection - execution with confiscation of all property - as a measure of judicial repression for theft of collective farm and cooperative property. “The Law of Five Spikelets” - that’s what they called it in the village. By the beginning of 1933, 54,645 people were sentenced under this law in the RSFSR, of which 2,110 were sentenced to capital punishment. The sentences were carried out around 1000 cases.

The famine covered an area of ​​about 1.5 million km² with a population of 65.9 million people.The population of the countryside was more affected by famine than the population of the cities, which was explained by the measures taken by the Soviet government to confiscate grain from the countryside. General estimates of the number of victims of the 1932-1933 famine reach 8 million people.»

Document No. 9 “Famine 1932-1933”:

“The growing socio-economic crisis reached its peak at the turn of 1932-1933. The harvest of 1932 was low and, moreover, poorly harvested. Forced state procurement in 1932, as a result of which most of the grain was taken out of the villages, led to severe famine in the main grain-producing regions of the country - in Ukraine, the North Caucasus, the Volga region and the Central Black Earth Region. Criminal collectivization led to the extinction of the population of Kazakhstan; the survivors fled en masse to neighboring countries. In total, in 1932-1933, according to the most reliable sources, from 4 to 5 million people died of hunger. Several million peasants, although they survived the famine, acquired severe chronic diseases and became disabled. In starving areas, crime became widespread, including such extreme forms as cannibalism. Crowds of peasants and children who had lost their parents rushed from villages to cities, where bread was issued on ration cards. The famine was accompanied by terrible epidemics. The frosty winter disrupted the work of the railways, and a sharp reduction in coal shipments from the Donbass caused serious fuel difficulties. Peasants' interest in agricultural production is declining and they are fleeing to the city. Therefore, the authorities introduce “registration” and take away passports. “Women-hairdressers” appeared - mothers of starving children went out into the fields at night with scissors and cut the ears of corn so that their children would not die of hunger. “Nesuns” appeared - when the harvest began, collective farmers, fearing to be left without bread after delivering agricultural products to the state, carried grain home in their pockets, in their bosoms. In response - the law on “5 spikelets”. August 7, 1932 The “Law on the Protection of Socialist Property” was issued. Collecting spikelets was punishable by execution or imprisonment for a term of at least 10 years with confiscation of property. For 5 months 1932 55 thousand people were convicted, including 2,110 people sentenced to death. There were many women among those convicted.”

What were the main causes of the famine of 1932-1933?

Causes of the famine of 1932-1933:
1. Ruin of the village by dispossession.
2. Unfavorable natural conditions.
3. Mass extermination of livestock.
4. Fulfillment of ruinous grain procurement standards.
5. Low work motivation of the poor and no longer the desire to work hard of the middle peasants.

Independent work with the map:
- Which Soviet territories (republics and regions) were engulfed in famine in 1932-1933?

Working with the textbook:

What are the results of collectivization?

Results of collectivization:

– A slowdown in the growth rate of agricultural production and the constant worsening of the food problem in the country.
– Elimination of the layer of wealthy peasants.
– Alienation of peasants from property and land.
– Destruction of the private sector in agriculture.
– Loss of economic incentives to work in agriculture.
– Transfer of funds from villages to cities.
– Diversion of huge funds from the development of agricultural production and rural infrastructure.
– Strengthening the social base of the Stalinist dictatorship.
– Elimination of “agrarian overpopulation”.
– Mass “exodus” of peasants from villages, labor shortage in rural areas.
– Famine of 1932-1933.

Questions to reinforce learned material
1. What topic did you study in class?
2. What is collectivization?
3. What are the years of collectivization in the USSR?
4. What transformations were carried out in the village?
5. When did collectivization end?
6. What did the forced unification of peasants into collective farms lead to?7. Do you think the collectivization of agriculture in the country was beneficial or harmful? Prove your point.

V . Reflection:

Consolidating knowledge with a crossword puzzle

1. A peasant is the owner of a strong farm.
2. Fight with fists
3. Creation of collective farms
Keyword: 4. collective farm (collective farm)

VI . Summing up andhomework:

Announcement of grades for work in class.
Read the text of the textbook, give answers to the questions in the textbook.

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 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;

Providing supplies to rapidly growing cities.

The pace of collectivization:

Spring 1931 – main grain growing regions (Middle and Lower Volga region, Northern Caucasus);

Spring 1932 – Central Black Earth 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;

Increase 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.

13. Foreign policy of the USSR 20-30.

The end of the First World War (the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919), the civil war and foreign intervention in Russia created new conditions in international relations. An important factor was the existence of the Soviet state as a fundamentally new socio-political system. A confrontation arose between the Soviet state and the leading countries of the capitalist world. It was this line that prevailed in international relations in the 20-30s of the 20th century. At the same time, contradictions between the largest capitalist states themselves, as well as between them and the “awakening” countries of the East, intensified. In the 1930s, the balance of international political forces was largely determined by the increasing aggression of the militaristic states - Germany, Italy and Japan.

The foreign policy of the Soviet state, while maintaining continuity with the policy of the Russian Empire in the implementation of geopolitical tasks, differed from it in its new nature and methods of implementation. It was characterized by ideologization of the foreign policy course, based on two provisions formulated by V.I. Lenin.

The first position is the principle of proletarian internationalism, which provides for mutual assistance in the struggle of the international working class and anti-capitalist national movements in underdeveloped countries. It was based on the Bolsheviks' belief in an imminent socialist revolution on a global scale. To develop this principle, the Communist International (Comintern) was created in Moscow in 1919. It included many left-wing socialist parties in Europe and Asia that switched to Bolshevik (communist) positions. Since its founding, the Comintern has been used by Soviet Russia to interfere in the internal affairs of many countries around the world, which strained its relations with other countries.

The second position - the principle of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist system - was determined by the need to strengthen the position of the Soviet state in the international arena, break out of political and economic isolation, and ensure the security of its borders. It meant recognition of the possibility of peaceful cooperation and, first of all, the development of economic ties with the West.

The inconsistency of these two fundamental provisions caused inconsistency in the foreign policy actions of the young Soviet state.

The West's policy towards Soviet Russia was no less contradictory. On the one hand, he sought to strangle the new political system and isolate it politically and economically. On the other hand, the leading powers of the world set themselves the task of compensating for the loss of funds and material property lost after October. They also pursued the goal of re-opening Russia to gain access to its raw materials and the penetration of foreign capital and goods into it.