In recent years, research work in the field of studying the history of the Soviet peasantry and collective farm construction in the USSR has noticeably intensified. This was largely due to preparations for the centenary of the birth of V. I. Lenin. Groups of scientists and individual researchers, preparing for the significant date, created a number of works devoted to the Lenin cooperative plan, its development and implementation in the USSR 1, in the union and autonomous republics, territories and regions of the RSFSR 2 . Materials of the sessions of agricultural historians dedicated to the Lenin jubilee 3 were published . Works covering certain problems and periods of the agrarian history of Soviet society have also been published .4 For the most part, this literature has not yet been considered historiographically. A review of literature on the history of Soviet society was prepared for the XIII International Congress of Historical Sciences, held in Moscow in 1970. But the works of 1970 and a number of works published in 19695 remained outside its framework . This review attempts to briefly review works on the history of the Soviet peasantry published in 1968-1970, usually in connection with preparations for the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birth. The literature on national republics, which needs special analysis, is characterized mainly in terms of identifying common features and some features of the process of socialist transformation of agriculture in the localities.
1 M. V. Gamayunov. Big changes. Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its Implementation in the USSR, Moscow, 1968; "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and the Party's Struggle for its Implementation," Moscow, 1969; " Soviet Peasantry. A brief outline of History (1917-1969)", Moscow, 1970; L. E. Fine. Istoriya razrabotki V. I. Lenin kooperativnogo plana [History of V. I. Lenin's development of a cooperative plan]. Moscow, 1970; G. V. Sharapov. Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its International Significance, Moscow, 1970.
2 " Essay on the history of collective farm construction in Tajikistan (1917-1965)", Dushanbe, 1968; M. Yakhyaev. Victory of the Leninist cooperative plan in Tajikistan. Dushanbe, 1968; A. S. Saparov. The triumph of Lenin's plan for the socialist transformation of agriculture in the Turkmen SSR. From the experience of the party organization of the Turkmen Republic on the development of the collective farm system in the period 1953-1965. Ashkhabad, 1968; A. Y. Ibragimova. Victory of the Leninist cooperative plan in Uzbekistan (1929-1933). Tashkent. 1969; "The triumph of the Leninist Cooperative Plan in Uzbekistan". Tashkent. 1970; A. I. Khalilov. The working people of Azerbaijan are fighting for the implementation of Lenin's cooperative plan. Baku. 1970; "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its implementation in Tatarstan". Kazan. 1970; " Lenin's course. The triumph of the Leninist Cooperative Plan in Kuban". Krasnodar. 1970, et al.
3 " The Soviet peasantry is an active participant in the struggle for socialism and communism." Reports and reports of participants of the interuniversity scientific conference dedicated to the centenary of the birth of V. I. Lenin. Barnaul, 1969; "V. I. Lenin and the Peasantry". Proceedings of the Interuniversity scientific conference. Voronezh. 1970.
4 R. H. Aminov. Agrarian transformations in Uzbekistan on the eve of continuous collectivization (1925-1929). Tashkent, 1969; K. G. Levykin. CPSU-organizer of collective farm production during the second five-year plan. Moscow, 1969; M. A. Vyltsan. Soviet village on the eve of the Great Patriotic War, Moscow, 1970; Yu. V. Harutyunyan. Soviet peasantry during the Great Patriotic War. Ed. 2-E. M. 1970, et al.
5 See "Works of Soviet Historians for 1965-1969", Moscow 1970, pp. 39-41.
page 154
The subject matter, chronological framework, and geography of published works are very diverse. The breadth of interests of agricultural historians of the Soviet period can be judged, in particular, by the materials of their conferences. For example, in Barnaul, the section " The Peasantry during the October Revolution, Civil War and Restoration of the National Economy (1917-1925) "discussed 23 reports and reports, the section" The Soviet peasantry - an active participant in the struggle for socialism (1926-1937) "- 29 reports and reports, the section " The Peasantry in the period of struggle for the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR-19 reports and reports, section "The peasantry and some problems in the development of the Soviet countryside during the unfolding construction of communism" - 25 reports and reports. Despite the variety of research topics, one can still see a tendency to create broad-based works that summarize the experience of our country in implementing Lenin's ideas of socialist transformation and further development of agriculture. These works contain a detailed description of Lenin's cooperative plan, and show how it was implemented under the leadership of the Communist Party on the basis of extensive concrete material. Much attention is paid to the analysis of the state and development of agriculture in the post-war years. The authors of the monograph "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and the Party's Struggle for its implementation" used a number of documents of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b), which were first introduced into scientific circulation, to analyze the process of mass collectivization.
The authors of most of the works published on the occasion of Lenin's jubilee naturally focused on the problems of socialist transformation of agriculture on the basis of Lenin's cooperative plan. It confirms once again the generally accepted point of view that V. I. Lenin developed the cooperative plan for a long time, and the articles "On Cooperation" completed this work. Only certain milestones in the formation of the cooperative plan6 cause certain disagreements . At the same time, it is rightly emphasized that the basic ideas of Lenin's cooperative plan, Lenin's principles of economic construction, were further developed in the decisions of the Communist Party and in the course of communist construction. The authors of the collective monograph on the implementation of the Leninist cooperative plan in the USSR raise the question of the correlation between the issues of technical and social reconstruction of agriculture in the cooperative plan. They come to the conclusion that V. I. Lenin did not consider the mechanization and electrification of agriculture on a mass scale a necessary preliminary prerequisite for the production cooperation of the peasantry. Also noteworthy is the attempt of the authors of the same book to clarify the content of Lenin's principle of the gradual process of co-operation of peasant farms in the sense that not every farm had to go through all the stages of co-operation7.
L. E. Fine comes to similar conclusions. "Lenin's thesis about the necessity of certain material and technical prerequisites for the socialist transformation of small-scale production, "he writes," cannot be understood dogmatically as the necessity of waiting for a certain maturity of the material and technical base." The author also believes that Lenin's cooperative plan did not involve mandatory multi-stage implementation, and that "as the experience gained and the technical equipment of agriculture grew, the possibilities of direct production cooperation increased"8 . L. E. Fine's work also raises the question of the scope of Lenin's cooperative plan. The author opposes the interpretation of the cooperative plan only as a plan for the socialist transformation of peasant farms and believes that its main tasks were also the transformation by cooperation of small enterprises of handicraftsmen and artisans into large socialist industrial enterprises and the organization by cooperative means of the distribution of material goods in socialist society among workers, peasants and peasants. -
6 See Yu. D. Chentsov. Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its coverage in historical and Party literature. "V. I. Lenin and the peasantry", p. 54-58; "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its implementation in Tataria", p. 18; L. E. Fine. Op. ed., pp. 13-14.
7 "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and the Party's struggle for its implementation", pp. 49, 53-54.
8 L. E. Fine. Op. ed., pp. 308, 316.
page 155
yang, cooperative artisans and intellectuals. In this connection, the book emphasizes V. I. Lenin's idea of universal cooperation of the entire population, and defines the role of consumer cooperation more broadly .9 It seems, however, that this problem needs further discussion; in any case, the point of view on expanding the scope of the cooperative plan seems controversial.
Researchers are almost unanimous in identifying the main stages of the history of the socialist transformation of agriculture in the USSR. The problems of periodization were repeatedly discussed by agricultural historians, in particular at the All-Union sessions in 1961 and 1969. G. A. Chigrinov made an attempt to revise the currently generally accepted periodization scheme. He asserts, for example, that complete collectivization in our country basically ended only in 1935, and considers the period of completion of collectivization and the creation of the collective farm system to be 1936-1940 .10 But such judgments do not agree with the actual course of the historical process and contradict a number of party documents. It is well known that by the end of the first five - year plan, significantly more peasant farms were collectivized in the most important agricultural regions of the country than the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) set as a criterion for solving the "mostly" problem of continuous collectivization (68-70% of peasant farms and 75-80% of the acreage of the peasant sector). The January (1933) Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Committee of the CPSU(b) had every reason to conclude: "The historical task of transferring small, individual, fragmented peasant farming to the rails of socialist large-scale agriculture has been solved."11 G. A. Chigrinov even asserts that the second stage of industrial cooperation of the peasantry in the USSR, which began in 1936, did not end in 1940; it was interrupted by the war and continued after it ended (pp. 5-6). However, there is no reason to attribute, as G. A. Chigrinov does, the completion of the socialist reconstruction of the village to 1940. A number of studies show that by the end of the second five-year plan, the tasks of direct technical reconstruction of agriculture were mostly solved in the country, and collectivization was fully completed. With the transfer of collective farms to the charter of 1935, which was accompanied by an increase in production, an improvement in the material situation of collective farmers, and the establishment of collective farm self-government, socialist production relations in the Soviet countryside were finally established and formalized in legislation and practice .12 The resolution of the XVIII Party Congress on the third five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the U.S.S.R. emphasized that by the end of the second five-year plan, "the most difficult task of the socialist revolution had been solved: the collectivization of agriculture had been completed, and the collective farm system was finally strengthened."13
The problem of the prerequisites for collectivization has received extensive coverage in recent studies. It is considered on the basis of extensive material, often in the chronological framework of 1917-1929. All authors emphasize that by the end of the 1920s, the country had created the necessary economic and political prerequisites for the transition to mass collectivization of agriculture. Historians of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Tataria show the peculiarities of preparing collectivization in backward national republics. In the book of R. H. Aminova, such an important economic prerequisite for the socialist transformation of agriculture in Uzbekistan and other republics of the Soviet East as the land and water reform of 1925-1929 was specially developed. The author clearly defines and thoroughly argues his position on the question of the nature of this reform as a revolutionary-democratic event.
9 Ibid., pp. 20-21, 304-309.
10 G. A. Chigrinov. The struggle of the CPSU for organizational and economic strengthening of collective farms in the pre-war years. Moscow, 1970, pp. 5, 173.
11 "The CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee". Part III, p. 178.
12 See M. A. Vyltsan. Strengthening the material and technical base of the collective farm system in the second Five-year Plan, Moscow, 1959; " Soviet Peasantry. A brief outline of History", p. 267.
13 "The CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee". Part III, p. 336.
page 156
Further development was given to the problem of creating material and technical prerequisites for collectivization. In all recent works, data are presented that indicate significant changes in the machine supply and mechanization of agriculture by the beginning of mass collectivization. Analyzing these facts, Tajik historians draw the following conclusion: "A certain minimum of technical rearmament... it was implemented in the republic by 1929-1930. This was a necessary technical prerequisite for the mass construction of collective farms to begin." "The availability of this agricultural machinery," write the authors of the book on Tartary, "was a serious basis for the collectivization of agriculture in the TASSR." N. V. Korolkov notes that in the grain regions of the RSFSR, where the main part of the country's tractor fleet was concentrated, tractor processing of collective farm fields was already noticeably widespread on the eve of mass collectivization. 14 Thus, the recent tendency to underestimate the real significance of new technology and to underestimate the degree of development of new productive forces in agriculture is overcome. At the same time, it confirms earlier conclusions that the main process of technical reconstruction of agriculture was completed only by the end of the second five-year plan.
Much attention is paid in the new works to the process of direct association of individual farmers in collective farms. The authors describe the role of the Communist Party as the leader and organizer of the mass collective-farm movement, the forms and methods of collectivization, the participation of the working class as a loyal ally of the peasantry, the general laws and specifics of the socialist transformation of agriculture in various regions of the USSR, and the implementation of the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class. The recent literature confirms and adds additional arguments to the point of view that the turn of the broad peasant masses towards collective farms in the second half of 1929 was not yet widespread. The authors of the generalizing work on the history of collectivization once again stated that the middle peasant's turn to collective farms at the end of 1929 occurred only in the leading grain districts . 15 Historians of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and the Upper Volga region date the beginning of continuous collectivization in the republics and districts to 1930.16 In most cases , a detailed argument is given in this regard. Ibragimova, analyzing data on the social composition of collective farms in Uzbekistan for 1929, comes to the conclusion that mostly farm labourers and poor people joined the collective farms, while the middle peasant took a wait-and-see attitude at that time; he was drawn to the collective farms only from the middle of 1930. In the collective farms of Tajikistan, the middle peasant class did not exceed 4% at the end of 1929, and in the spring of 1930 it reached 34.1%17 . Thus, the turn of the broad masses of the peasantry towards collective farms was not a one-time act, but a complex and relatively lengthy process. G. A. Chigrinov remains on the old positions on this issue, but his arguments are not based on the analysis of specific material and are reduced, in essence ,to terminological reasoning. 18 At the same time, he ignores the conclusions contained in a number of party documents, in particular in the decisions of the XVI Party Congress, which, when summing up the collective farm movement by the summer of 1930, emphasized: "A significant part of the middle peasant masses in the most important grain areas, following the poor, realized the advantages of large-scale social economy... and turned to the socialist path. " 19
14 "Essay on the history of collective farm construction in Tajikistan", p. 87-88; "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its implementation in Tataria", p. 91; N. V. Korolkov, V. I. Lenin and issues of technical armament of agriculture (based on the materials of tractor columns and MTS of the North Caucasus and the Central Federal District). "Lenin and the Peasantry", pp. 97-100.
15 "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and the Party's Struggle for its implementation", p. 96.
16 M. Yakhyaev. Edict. op., p. 32; A. Yu. Ibragimova. Op. ed., pp. 46-47, 144; A. K. Shustov. From the experience of implementing Lenin's cooperative plan in the Upper Volga region in 1927-1937 "V. I. Lenin and the peasantry", pp. 80-81.
17 A. Y. Ibragimova. Op. ed., pp. 47, 144; "Essay on the history of collective farm construction in Tajikistan", pp. 43, 57.
18 See G. A. Chigrinov. Op. ed., pp. 41-44.
19 "The CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee". Part III, p. 51.
page 157
The works of historians of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan emphasize that the main features and difficulties of collectivization in these, as in other republics of the Soviet East, were due to the fact that the latter made the transition to socialism from semi-feudal relations, bypassing the capitalist stage of development. In the course of collectivization, they also had to solve the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution (the elimination of feudal remnants, overcoming the landlessness and lack of land of the poor and middle peasants). Collectivization was carried out here at a slower pace and mainly in the form of TOZs (in Tajikistan this form prevailed until the end of the second five-year plan), two slogans were simultaneously applied to the peasantry-restrictions and elimination of it as a class, special forms of work with the peasantry were used (creating unions of the poor)20 . However, researchers can be reproached for not paying due attention to the collectivization process during the second five-year plan. Some of them (for example, A. Y. Ibragimova) limit the chronological framework of their works devoted to the victory of the Leninist cooperative plan to the years of the first five-year plan without serious grounds .21 The course of collectivization at its final stage, the transfer of collective farms to the Charter of the Agricultural artel, adopted in 1935, generally continues to be a bottleneck in our historiography. But the issues related to the completion of social transformations in the countryside did not lose their relevance during the second five-year plan. This is evidenced by a meeting in the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) in July 1934, which specifically discussed this issue .22
Certain issues of the history of the initial stage of continuous collectivization, which were previously covered with errors, have recently become quite acute. In the works of some historians, as indicated in the party press, excessive emphasis was placed on the excesses and distortions of the party line during collectivization, and when analyzing the causes of these distortions, one-sidedness was allowed. 23 The latest literature thoroughly analyzes both objective and subjective factors of violations of Lenin's principles of cooperative peasantry in the early 1930s. The novelty of the case, the need for an accelerated pace of collectivization, the aggravation of the class struggle, and the desire of many local workers to complete the collectivization of peasant farms as soon as possible are particularly emphasized. It is noted that the Central Asian Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b), the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and the Tatar Regional Party Committee gave erroneous directives on speeding up the pace of collectivization. Some researchers believe that due to the enormous objective difficulties, mistakes in carrying out collectivization were unavoidable .24 This seems to justify the grossest "leftist" mistakes of the initial stage of complete collectivization, which cannot be accepted. G. A. Chigrinov took a confused position on the issue of excesses. He considers this problem in two aspects: historiographical and concrete-historical. Drawing attention to the one-sidedness shown by some authors in explaining the reasons for these excesses, he himself makes similar assessments in the second part of the presentation, reducing, in essence, the entire explanation to errors of the Collective Farm Center and local workers .25 The author is also inconsistent in the question of when the distortions and errors in collective farm construction appeared: first, he criticizes those researchers who believe that collectivization was artificially forced in some places in the autumn of 1929 and excesses were allowed, and then he repeatedly speaks about the excesses of "the end of 1929-the beginning of 1930" 26 .
20 "Essay on the history of collective farm construction in Tajikistan", p. 89; A. Y. Ibragimova. Op. ed., p. 83.
21 A. Y. Ibragimova asserts that in 1932 the total collectivization in Uzbekistan was mostly completed, but this is based on the indicator of collectivization of dehkan farms in the republic as a whole (p.167). With a differentiated approach, it turns out that the completion of collectivization (mainly) by the beginning of 1933 can only be said in relation to the cotton regions of the republic (see "History of the Uzbek SSR", Vol. Tashkent, 1967, pp. 536, 598-599).
22 See Lenin's Cooperative Plan and the Party's Struggle for its Implementation, p. 129.
23 Cm, "Communist". 1966, No. 3; 1967, No. 11; 1968, No. 4; 1969, No. 3; "Questions of the History of the CPSU", 1968, No. 6.
24 A. Y. Ibragimov. Op. ed., p. 104.
25 G. A. Chigrinov. Op. ed., pp. 56-64.
26 Ibid., pp. 44, 46, 56, 60.
page 158
The work "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and the Party's struggle for its implementation" shows that mistakes and excesses were exposed and strongly condemned by the party itself. Here are the directives of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b), sent to the localities at the end of January 1930, warning against the pursuit of high rates of collectivization and against the premature transition to the elimination of the Kulaks (pp. 109-110). The authors show the titanic struggle of the party for the restoration of Lenin's principles of collectivization in the spring of 1930. Unlike some other researchers, they believe that the absence in the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) of January 5, 1930, of specific instructions on the terms of collectivization for districts and regions of the third stage indicated that the Central Committee warned the party organizations of these districts that it was too early for them to proceed to complete collectivization (p.101). Nevertheless, in our opinion, the analysis of the causes that gave rise to distortions and errors in collective farm construction is not sufficiently complete in this work. In fact, it all comes down to the objective difficulties and mistakes of local leaders. In the work of S. P. Even in the third edition of the textbook on the history of the party, Trapeznikov also draws attention to the fact that the new class policy in the countryside, proclaimed by J. V. Stalin in his speech at the conference of agrarian Marxists at the end of 1929, was not properly justified and explained to the party cadres (even the Central Committee plenum was not convened in this regard). Many regarded it as a policy of applying administrative measures and, under the fear of "dekulakization", began to force peasants to join collective farms .27
The problem of eliminating the kulaks as a class still remains one of the least developed, as evidenced by the literature of recent years. Specific material about the course of this process, given in the works of local historians, suffers from fragmentary incompleteness. The attempt of some authors to identify the main stages of implementing the policy of eliminating the kulaks deserves attention 28 . However, they do not give a clear description of these stages, and their figures on expropriated and evicted kulaks are incomplete and contradictory. It is still not clear what the kulak farms were like at the end of the first and beginning of the second five - year plans, or what the specific milestones were for completing the process of eliminating the Kulaks as a class in various regions of the country. All these shortcomings are mainly related to the state of available sources, but it seems that far from everything has been done to identify and collect relevant documents and materials.
The problems of formation and development of collective farm production are studied much more effectively. An objective picture of the state of agricultural production in the period of continuous collectivization is given in all works. Their authors analyze both serious difficulties and shortcomings, as well as the first successes of collective farms. The great achievements of socialist agriculture during the second and third five-year plans are thoroughly and convincingly described in a number of books .29 K. G. Levykin's monograph examines the party's policy on the management of collective farm production, the key problems of organizational and economic strengthening of collective farms. The author thoroughly examines issues related to the placement and use of new equipment in collective farm production, the training of agricultural personnel, and the labor activity of the masses. Unfortunately, the book does not contain generalized data on the dynamics of the growth of acreage, yield, livestock productivity, gross and marketable products of collective farms. Correctly criticizing the statistics of that time for the distorted information about the yield on collective farms 30, K. G. Levykin, however, does not provide data on the actual (barn) yield. Meanwhile, some researchers continue to use inflated yield figures to this day.
27 S. P. Trapeznikov. Marxism and the Agrarian-Peasant Question, vol. 2, Moscow, 1967, pp. 254-255; Istoriya Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soyuza, Moscow, 1970, pp. 403-104.
28 See "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its implementation in Tartary", pp. 132, 161-162; "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and the Party's struggle for its implementation", pp. 108, 121.
29 See "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its implementation in Tatarstan", pp. 194-198; "Essay on collective farm construction in Tajikistan", pp. 124-127, 129-136; M. A. Vyltsan. Soviet village on the eve of the Great Patriotic War, pp. 92-138.
30 K. G. Levykin. Op. ed., p. 13.
page 159
It is noteworthy that researchers are increasingly leaving the circle of traditionally developed problems of the history of collectivization and collective farm construction. In particular, attempts are made to trace the development of collective farm democracy from the time of the first collective farms, to examine the social structure of the rural population, and to show the international significance of Lenin's cooperative plan on concrete materials31 . The article also examines the church's hostile activities against collective farms and the history of the creation of migrant collective farms .32
The history of the Soviet peasantry during the Great Patriotic War has recently received coverage both in some general works and in special works. In the Essay on the History of Collective farm construction in Tajikistan, a special chapter is devoted to this period, which is rich in factual material. The most detailed study of the history of the Soviet peasantry during the war is given in the work of Yu. V. Harutyunyan. Analyzing the latest works of Soviet historians in the second edition of the book, the author comes to the conclusion that "the attention of researchers is not yet sufficiently focused on studying a number of topical topics on the history of the Soviet peasantry during the war", and that "many conclusions still need to be clarified and deepened"33 . One of the generalizing works on this topic is the collective work "The Soviet Economy during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945" (Moscow, 1970). The chapters devoted to agriculture, which are very informative and rich in valuable economic and statistical data, consolidate the realistic approach to the problems of the agricultural economy during the war period, which was predetermined by the works of the early 60s. The authors make extensive use of already published research, as well as introduce some new documents and materials.
The available literature allows us to draw a conclusion about the continuing intensive study of the post-war period of the history of the Soviet peasantry and collective farm construction. It is quite natural that historians pay special attention to the events after the March (1965) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU - the most important milestone in the history of the modern village. They emphasize that after this Plenum, Lenin's principles of economic construction found their fullest expression both in theory and in practice. In the decisions of the XXIV Congress of the CPSU, the party's policy of fully intensifying agriculture was consolidated and further elaborated.
Somewhat more attention was paid in the literature to the first post-war five-year period, which was primarily associated with the process of restoring the national economy. As is well known, for a number of years the significance of this period in the history of the Soviet countryside was underestimated, and mistakes were made in its coverage .34 It is characteristic that most authors now allocate special sections devoted to the restoration and development of agriculture in 1946-1950 .35 At the same time, conclusions are drawn about the extremely rapid recovery of productive forces and agricultural production due to the advantages of the socialist system, about the unprecedented labor heroism of rural workers, and about the successful use of various forms of moral and material incentives for collective farmers in these years .36 Researchers of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan emphasize that after cotton procurement prices were doubled in 1949 and a number of benefits were established for cotton-growing collective farms, the development of this industry began to be carried out at a rapid pace, and at the end of the five-year plan, plans for cotton production were made
31 See "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and the Party's Struggle for its Implementation", chapters III and V; M. A. Vyltsan. Op. ed., pp. 139-151; M. V. Gamayunov. Edict. op., ch. V; G. V. Sharapov. Edict op.
32 See the articles by I. D. Eingorn, N. I. Platunov, and V. T. Aniskov in the collection "The Soviet Peasantry-an active participant in the struggle for Socialism and Communism".
33 Yu. V. Harutyunyan. Op. ed., p. 32.
34 See "Essays on the Historiography of the Soviet Society", Moscow, 1967, pp. 235-236.
35 See "Essay on the history of collective farm construction in Tajikistan"; "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its implementation in Tatarstan"; T. G. Samedov. Economic and cultural development of Turkmenistan during the completion of the construction of socialism in the USSR (1945-1958). Ashgabat. 1970.
36 See, for example, "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its implementation in Tartary", pp. 218-219.
page 160
in these republics, 37 were significantly exceeded . The literature raises the question of the timing of the massive consolidation of collective farms in various regions of the country. According to scientists of Tatarstan, this process, which began in the republic, as well as everywhere, since 1950, was completed only by the end of the 50s38 .
All researchers show that in the period 1953-1958 there was a continuous growth of all agricultural production, virgin and fallow lands were successfully developed, and the material situation of the collective farm peasantry significantly improved. Some authors ' attempt to find out the correlation between intensive and extensive ways of developing agriculture in these years is noteworthy, and note the well-known inconsistency in the implementation of measures to boost agriculture developed by the September (1953) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU39 .
In books about Tajikistan and Tataria, in the monograph of A. S. Saparov, considerable attention is paid to the development of agriculture and collective farms during the seven-year period. It is noteworthy that the approach to covering this period has become more scientific and realistic. Researchers analyze the development of the material and production base of the collective farm system, measures aimed at strengthening and raising agricultural production, and tell about the selfless work of the peasantry. At the same time, significant shortcomings in the management of agriculture are not obscured, and it shows how they were corrected after the October (1964) and March (1965) Plenums of the Central Committee of the CPSU. At the same time, attempts are made to overcome the one-sidedness in the approach to the history of the post-war countryside, when the party's policy in the field of agriculture and its implementation in the development of productive forces and production were mainly studied, and problems related to the social development of the countryside, culture, life and spiritual appearance of the peasantry remained in the In the monograph of A. S. Saparova, "An essay on the history of collective farm construction in Tajikistan" describes some social processes and cultural construction in rural areas. The book "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and the Party's Struggle for its Implementation" describes the main directions of the process of equalizing living and working conditions in the city and countryside. The materials of scientific conferences show that a number of historians fruitfully study the social problems of the modern village 40, the culture and life of the peasantry 41, and its spiritual appearance 42 .
Thus, the literature on the history of the Soviet peasantry and collective farm construction, published on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birth, sums up the great and fruitful work of Soviet agricultural historians. The gaps in it indicate the need for further in-depth study of the history of the Soviet peasantry and collective farm construction.
37 "Essay on the history of collective farm construction in Tajikistan", pp. 220-225; T. G. Samedov. Op. ed., pp. 82-84.
38 "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its implementation in Tataria", p. 232.
39 See "Essay on the history of collective farm construction in Tajikistan", p. 263, 267, 268; "Lenin's Cooperative Plan and its implementation in Tataria", p.237; T. G. Samedov. Op. ed., pp. 112, 113.
40 See articles by N. M. Zolotukhin and I. L. Voinov in the collection "V. I. Lenin and the Peasantry"; A. N. Zueva and E. P. Pozdneeva in the collection"The Soviet Peasantry - an active participant in the struggle for Socialism and Communism".
41 See the articles by E. V. Deniskina and S. Savoskul in the collection "The Soviet Peasantry-an active participant in the struggle for Socialism and Communism"; A. M. Krachkovskaya, Yu. I.Khaustov, V. V. Morokhoev and N. R. Kasyanov in the collection "V. I. Lenin and the Peasantry".
42 See the articles by N. F. Alekseev, L. V. Ostapenko, and A. I. Kvardakov in the collection "The Soviet Peasantry-an active participant in the struggle for Socialism and Communism".
page 161
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2020-2025, BIBLIO.UZ is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Uzbekistan |