Implementation of state policy in collective farms and political departments of the Angara village in the first half of 1930.

Proskuryakova Mariya Anatol'evna ORCID: 0000-0002-4121-6911 Postgraduate student, Department of History and Methodology, Irkutsk State University 669516, Russia, Irkutsk region, Tugutui village, Zarechnaya str., 22 A, office 669516 andreasha1205@mail.ru

The implementation of state policy in the Soviet countryside radically changed both the social essence and the economic structure of the peasantry. This process had some regional features that can be traced in the territory of the Angara region. In the Resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b), adopted on January 5, 1930, "On the pace of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction", it was planned to complete collectivization in Siberia, in the autumn of 1931 – spring of 1932. There it was also prescribed the reconstruction of machine and tractor stations on the basis of contracts with collectives and the obligation of peasants to repay the cost of MTS within 3 years.x years old ^{[1, pp. 85-86]}.

The number of collective farms in rural areas of the East Siberian Territory during the period of collectivization increased from 4,700 in 1931 to 5,100 in 1933 ^{[2, p.160]}, however, already in 1934 it decreased to 4,475 ^{[2, p.318]}. The number of MTS in the East Siberian Region has increased significantly: from 11 in 1931 to 72 in 1934 ^{[2, p.312]}. In the Angara region in the mid-1930s, there was a tendency to decrease the number of collective farms: if in 1935 there were 1907, then in 1936 there were 1874. The overall decrease in the number of collective farms was due to their enlargement, which can be traced to the amount of collectivized yards, which increased from 106.6 in 1935 to 112.6 in 1936; per collective farm, respectively: 56 and 60 yards. The level of collectivization of yards also increased from 83% in 1935 to 94% in 1936, at the same time, by 1936, 100% of crops in the territory of the modern Irkutsk region had been collectivized. The number of MTS in the Angara region grew steadily: from 50 in 1935 to 67 in 1936. However, machine and tractor stations could serve no more than half of all collective farms: 718 in 1935 and 920 in 1936 ^{[3, p. 68]}.

Since the early 1930s, collective farms have become the basis on which socialist life was built, and people's psychology has changed. They were a school of socio-political activity and the improvement of democracy. In the Angara region, initiative groups ("red matchmakers") were created to activate joining collective farms, which held numerous meetings, rallies, agitations, individual conversations among individuals ^{[4, p. 565]}.

The grain procurement plan for the East Siberian Territory in 1930 was approved in the amount of 3,200,000 pounds. Grain procurements were distributed by sectors: state farm, collective farm, individual, contractors and "kulaks". A firm task was given to each well-to-do household to ensure the complete delivery of bread. For the early implementation of the plan, competitions were organized between individual farms ^{[5, L. 19]}. The deadline for the delivery of bread by collective farms was planned to be completed by November 7, by the wealthy – by December 1. The deadlines were differentiated, taking into account the uniqueness of the regions of the region ^{[6, l. 18]}.

The authorities of the East Siberian Territory defined the main tasks of collectivization for collective farms in 1931: disciplined implementation of the grain procurement plan, assistance in the implementation of the plan to individuals, fulfillment of all obligations to the state and deduction to the funds established by the charter. Only after that it was possible to solve such collective farm problems as wages and delays in income distribution ^{[7, l. 301]}.

In the spring of 1931, the following districts of the Angara region successfully passed the sowing campaign: Ziminsky, Balagansky, Usolsky, Slyudyansky, which fulfilled over 100% of the plan; completed from 82 to 97% of the plan: Cheremkhovsky, Zalarinsky, Ust-Udinsky, Irkutsk districts; disrupted the plan: (from 62%) Kuytunsky, Tulunsky, Kachugsky districts ^{[8, L. 97]}.

The following tasks were set before the sowing campaign of 1932: to carry out the sowing campaign on time and finish earlier than last year, to provide collective farms and state farms with seeds. The region was supposed to sow 2,050 thousand hectares in 1932, including 1,706 thousand hectares of grain; allied trusts - 200 thousand hectares. The successful sowing in Eastern Siberia, according to the authorities, had not only food, but also defense significance ^{[9, l. 216]}. The districts of the Angara region that fulfilled the annual plan for February 29, 1932: Kirensky, Ziminsky, Kuytunsky, Nizhne-Udinsky, Zalarinsky, Kachugsky, Bratsky, Zhigalovsky, Cheremkhovsky. The following did not fulfill the plan: Usolsky, Balagansky, Irkutsk, Taishetsky ^{[10, l. 126, 128]}.

On October 25, 1934, the grain procurements were completed in full, 2 months earlier than last year. The collective farms were provided with seeds and grain, the plan for winter sowing and forage silage was fully implemented (for example, silage was harvested 2 times more than last year) ^{[11, p. 226]}.

The authorities of the Angara region controlled the internal structure of collective farms by administrative orders: "The chairmen of collective farms should create iron discipline in collective farms, suppressing the slightest attempts to violate labor discipline, without weakening mass work among collective farmers, without stopping before applying measures of influence (fines, exclusion from collective farms) to maliciously disrupting cleaning, not fulfilling the conditions for the quality of cleaning, late and missing work to collective farmers and collective farmers who do not perform instructions of Comrade. Razumova is about working from dark to dark and about one-and-a-half and double production with high quality cleaning. Meals should be organized in such a way as to have one boiler in which a lunch of meat and dairy products will be cooked – these dinners should be given to those who exceed the norms and have high cleaning quality, and a second boiler for all others that give unsatisfactory quantitative and qualitative indicators" ^{[12, l. 11]}.

The collective farms in the village represented the main socio-economic association of the peasantry, created by the government to implement state policy in all areas of life. Unlike collective farms, machine and tractor stations were organizations representing the interests of the working class in agriculture.

The widespread introduction of MTS into the agricultural sector began back in 1929, after the resolution of the Council of Labor and Defense "On the organization of machine and tractor stations". Compared to collective farmers, the position of MTS employees was more privileged, as determined by the resolution of the Central Committee and the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of January 13, 1933. Thus, the payment of MTS tractor drivers and combine harvesters provided for a guaranteed minimum. Despite this, complaints were received from collective farms about the substandard work of MTS, extortion from collective farms of tractor stations, etc. MTS employees, in turn, were dissatisfied with the failure of collective farms to fulfill their obligations, late payments, equipment breakdowns, poor nutrition. Machine and tractor stations faced problems of lack of premises, weak repair facilities, huge staff turnover, lack of gasoline, poor condition of the dormitory for MTS machine operators, etc. ^{[13, p. 251]}.

In January 1933, at the joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), I. V. Stalin declared the need to create political departments with economic, political and punitive powers in all MTS and state farms. The political departments consisted of 6 people represented by the head of the political department (who was also deputy director of MTS), two deputies for party and mass work (one of them was responsible for work on the OGPU), an assistant for Komsomol work, for work among women and the editor of a large-circulation newspaper ^{[14, pp. 77-79]}. Employees of political departments had privileges in food supply, compared with collective farmers.

According to A. S. Shevlyakov, the political departments had to suppress the resistance of the peasants, establish the collective farm system in the village, and subordinate the peasants to the party field. They were a lever to overcome the economic and organizational problems of agriculture, to combat dissatisfaction with the methods of collectivization. In addition, political departments performed party and state functions to guide all aspects of village life (Shevlyakov A.S. Political departments of MTS and state farms of Siberia (1930-1940). abstract. doct. diss. Tomsk. 2001. pp. 34-35).

In the minutes of the meetings of the political department of the Golumet MTS dated March 1, 1934, the aggravation of the "class struggle" in the current sowing campaign is noted. Class enemies, which included well-to-do peasants ("kulaks"), as the employees of the political department confidently assumed, would interfere with sowing. That is why cultural, mass and political work was ordered to be concentrated directly in the production team ^{[15, l. 3, vol.]}. According to the protocol of March 13, it is possible to trace the activities of the political department before the start of the sowing campaign: concluding contracts with collective farms, checking them for the presence of kulaks, cleaning collective farms. Great attention was also paid to economic issues, but the primary tasks of the political departments were the ideological strengthening of collective farms ^{[15, L. 5, vol.]}.

In the Angara region, political departments monitored the work of reading rooms, red corners and educational services, held meetings of village councils and members of editorial boards of wall newspapers, convened cluster meetings of teachers on cultural and mass work on collective farms ^{[15, L. 32]}.

The plans of the MTS political departments assumed intensive, active political mass work ^{[15, l. 38]}. So, in the political department of MTS in the village of Golumet on April 17, 1934, the chairmen of collective farms, village councils, red corners, heads of schools, "izbachi" gathered at a cluster meeting – a total of 40 people. The General Meeting heard all the achievements and miscalculations in local rural work on the eve of May 1. It is noteworthy that the protocol reflects a fairly objective discussion of current issues: the document does not contain accusations, slogans and agitations typical of most Soviet-era sources ^{[15, pp. 55-59]}. Thus, the political departments not only fought against peasant discontent, but also exercised general control over the agricultural sector. In a way, the political departments had integration functions in the village, uniting various bodies and organizations.

In August 1934, the political department of the Khudo-Elan MTS criticized discipline in collective farms, reporting facts of late arrival of collective farmers to work, their failure to comply with daily norms and generally weak discipline. Employees of the political department have a negative attitude to the equalizing principle of issuing products to collective farmers: the volume of products, in their opinion, should correspond to the work done ^{[16, L. 4-5, 16]}.

Under the leadership of political departments, a network of production party cells and candidate groups was created, communists were sent as party traders to collective farm brigades ^{[17, pp. 304, 305]}. To improve the work of collective farms, political department employees were attached to them ^{[18, l. 6]}. The political department controlled the work of the chairmen, sent them letters and orders for study, announced reprimands ^{[18, L. 8]}, dealt with personnel issues, pointed out shortcomings in the work ^{[18, L. 10]}. The economic functions of the political departments were to establish the order of harvesting, control the quantity and quality of harvesting bread, agrotechnical techniques up to fertilizing the soil ^{[18, l. 16-17]}, the general organization of collective farm work ^{[18, l. 14]}.

The disadvantages of the collective farm system were keenly felt by the peasants. Dissatisfaction with the state policy in agriculture in the Angara region can be traced in the statements of the peasants: "Piecework drains the last juices from the peasant", "We did not go to the collective farm to work like oxen, but they want to turn us into these oxen", "Collective farms are the bondage of Russia. Collective farms have now begun to conquer Siberia," "Down with state farms and collective farms. Long live the Soviet government without collective farms!" ^{[19, l. 102]}.

Leaflets were distributed in the Ziminsky district in which the authors speak out against collective farms and in favor of the sole sector (spelling, punctuation and style of the document are preserved): "Dear fellow Communists and our governors. Isn't it time for you to come to your senses and isn't it time for you to stop fucking with workers and peasants and mock them. Dear comrades, isn't it time to overthrow these clampers? And dear fellow workers, is it not enough for us to endure such torments and such torments of workers and peasants? Down with the agitators for collective farms and various contracts and communes. Long live the free peasantry and the improvement of agriculture through free individual farming" ^{[20, l. 137]}.

In the Zhigalovsky district, an announcement was posted by unknown persons with the following content (spelling, punctuation and style of the document are preserved): "Comrade. The middle peasants, the poor, the farm labourers, as well as the rest of the citizens. Do not go to collective farms – it will be bad there, but if anyone enters the collective farm, he will say goodbye to his life – the communists will soon come to an end, the Soviet government will disperse like smoke in the air, soon you citizens will be freed from the yoke and the banner of war will soon light up. From the French General, Deputy D. Armer" ^{[21, L. 89]}.

In the early 1930s, peasants' dissatisfaction with the implementation of state policy manifested itself not only in the form of statements, leaflets and advertisements, but also in the form of active, including illegal, actions. There were cases of arson, damage to collective farm property, attempts and murders on representatives of collective farm and party assets ^{[21, l. 20]}. In Eastern Siberia, according to statistics from 26 MTS political departments at the end of 1933, there were 20 acts of peasant discontent in 1934 - 41 acts, in 1935 – 51 ^{[22, p. 248]}.

Turning to the conclusions, it is worth noting that the collective farms and political departments of MTS in the first half of the 1930s were the key agents of state policy in the countryside. Collective farms mainly provided control over the economic sphere, the main part of which was the grain procurement campaign. The implementation of grain procurement plans was ensured by strict control over the discipline of collective farmers. Working conditions on both collective farms and MTS were receding into the background. The article analyzes the peculiarities of MTS dominance over collective farms. The place of MTS political departments in the socio-political life of the Angara village has been revealed. Unpublished archival materials illustrating the opinions of peasants regarding collectivization and the collective farm system are presented. The coverage of the research problem is especially relevant in modern conditions, when the role of agriculture is increasing. An objective study of the agricultural policy of the Soviet government in the regional aspect will allow us to outline the right solutions in Russian agrarian policy.