Soviet Kolkhoz Farmers Violation of the New Model Charter in the Late 1930 s: Its Illegality and Rationality

Transcription

1 Soviet Kolkhoz Farmers Violation of the New Model Charter in the Late 1930 s: Its Illegality and Rationality Takeo HIDAI Saitama Gakuen University, JAPAN *This paper is a draft version. Please do not cite this paper. Abstract After the collectivization process in the late 1920 s and early 1930 s, soviet power introduced a new model Charter for all Kolkhoz from the year The process seemed to be successful, but in fact there were many violations of the Charter by Kolkhozniki (Kolkhoz farmers). This paper will discuss some aspects of the violations in the latter half of 1930 s, focusing on the Ural region. There, for example, many Kolkhoz hired work force from outside for the work of cultivation. These actions were prohibited and treated as illegal in the sentence of new Charter, because cultivation was deemed the most basic and important work of the Kolkhoz, and Soviet ideology held that such important work should be accomplished by the formal members of the Kolkhoz. But his type of violation of new Charter prevailed widely. This period in the soviet history was dominated by the powerful dictatorship of Stalin regime. But, in fact, Kolkhoz farmers boldly neglected the new version of Kolkhoz Charter. Why did they do this? Why did they hire external workers? Were there any rational reasons? This paper will discuss these subjects using historical materials in the archives located in the Sverdlovsk State of the Ural region, including fiscal statements of individual Kolkhoz. Introduction After the collectivization of the farmers under the Stalin regime, the relationship between soviet power and farmers changed. Kolkhoz farmers felt that they had been dispossessed of their lands by state authority through the process of collectivization. Under these circumstances, the Stalin administration changed its policy towards the peasants. In February 1935, the Second Congress of Outstanding Kolkhozniki (kolkhozniki-udarniki) was held in 1

2 Moscow. At the Congress, a new version of the Kolkhoz model Charter was recognized. This new Charter should be adopted in every Kolkhoz, by a full membership meeting, with only small adjustments for specific conditions in each Kolkhoz. The same year, in July, a new low was passed, on the issue of certification of indefinite (eternal) land-using of the agricultural cooperative association (Artel ). According to this new law, every Artel (Kolkhoz) has the right to receive the state certification for agricultural Artel of indefinite (eternal) land-using rights, or state certification. This meant that the Stalin administration made concessions to peasants 1 : it recognized eternal tenure of land for the Kolkhoz collective s, and private use of specific plots by the members of Kolkhoz. This meant that the state authority approved private cultivation by the Kolkhoz farmers. These concessions were included in the chapters of new version of the Kolkhoz model Charter, and the Stalin administration made each Kolkhoz adopt new Charter. The process of adoption by Kolkhoz seems to have been completed quickly. For example, in the Sverdlovsk Oblast (State), located in Ural region, this process was almost 90% complete by the end of But what seemed a high level of acceptance belied underlying disregard for what was meant to be the most basic and important regulation to Kolkhoz by the state in the late 1930 s and afterwards. This neglect by peasants of the new version of the Charter raises a following question: how did Soviet peasants react to the new policy of the Stalin administration, including some concessions to the Kolkhozniki (Kolkhoz peasants). The reactions of peasants showed that they accepted the new Kolkhoz policy on the surface, and the adoption process of the new Charter by Kolkhoz whole member meetings had been swift 2, but after these adoptions, Kolkhoz peasants violated the new Charter which they at first officially accepted. We have to inquire the real aspect of how peasants adopted (or neglected, violated) the new version of Kolkhoz Charter. We will discuss these subjects, using many historical materials, including fiscal statements of individual kolkhoz, stored in the archives located in Sverdlovsk Oblast (State) of Ural region, on the border between European part and Siberian part of Russian Republic. As already discussed, in February 1935 the Second Congress of Outstanding Kolkhozniks was held, and at the Congress a new revised version of Model Charter of Artel was approved. In July of the same year new legislation followed, on the issue of certification of indefinite (eternal) land-using rights to the agricultural Artel. After these actions held in Moscow, each district (raion) administration made a concrete draft of new Charter for each Kolkhoz, filled with specific figures 1 About this concession, see Fitzpatric S., Stalin s Peasants, Oxford, 1994, p On this process, see Hidai T., New model charter of kolkhoz and soviet peasants in the latter half of 1930 s: state certifications and arrangements of land-using in Ural region, Japanese Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 49, no. 2, (in Japanese). 2

3 met within the Kolkhoz, and each Kolkhoz adopted it after discussion in the whole member meetings. These adopted Charters were registered by the Soviet State, and in exchange for state registration, the Soviet regime issued state certifications of eternal land-using rights to Kolkhoz. Almost all the contents of drafts are the same as Model Charter, except for very few concrete figures met with specific conditions around each Kolkhoz. Therefore, we can discuss the situation around new Kolkhoz Charter with the material of Model Charter. 1. On the usage of employed external work force in general According to the provisions of the new Charter, Kolkhoz work in general, such as cultivation, should be only by the member of that Kolkhoz, and using external provided labor for these works was prohibited in principle. Article No.13 of the Charter required that in Kolkhoz employed labor force can be used for agricultural works only for expertise and education such as agricultural engineer, industrial engineer, assistant engineer etc., and employment of temporary labor force can be used only when required works cannot be accomplished within given period by using the work force of that Kolkhoz, or for construction work. The regulations of the new Charter were very strict, but in fact there were many violations due largely to labor shortages, broadly in late 1930 s in Sverdlovsk State. Table 1 Employment of Work Force in Kolkhoz of Sverdlovsk State (person per day) (person per day) (person per day) (person per day) Whole number of employment of work force, including temporary one 1,488, , , , Cultivation work 1,043, , , , Construction work 148, , , , Supporting firms 112, , , , Other works 184, , , , Source: ; ЦДООСО. Ф.4. Оп. 35. Д Л об. (also in Колхозная жизнь на Урале , Москва, 2006, C.304.) 1940; ЦДООСО. Ф. 4. Оп. 35. Д Л (also in Колхозная жизнь на Урале , Москва, 2006, C.320.). 1.1 Trends of using employed external work force Table 1 indicates trends in using external work force in Sverdlovsk State (This table was attached to the Explanatory document on the review of main discussion topics of the annual reports by 3

4 Kolkhoz in Sverdlovsk State Table 2 Trends of Work-Day Unit of Kolkhozniki in Sverdlovsk State of the year 1939) According to the table, the number of employed labor force who were engaged in cultivation amounted to 70.1% of all employed labor force (unit: person-day). This tells us that the amount of labor engaged in cultivation, the core work of the Kolkhoz, was large. In the next year, 1938, the proportion above decreased to 38.1%, and, in 1939, to 16.3%. This decrease was assessed in Table 2 and Table 3, as well as in the document Whole number of Kolkhozniki who engaged in production work of Kolkhoz 271, , ,302 Overage male, workable 108, , ,162 Overage female, workable 126, , ,647 Underage members (age 12-16) 37,296 37,619 43,493 Propotion of work-day unit of Kolkhozniki (including underage member) in the accounting years under 50 unit of work-day unit of work-day unit of work-day unit of work-day unit of work-day over 401 unit of work-day Numbers of Kolkhozniki who didn't achieve even one unit of work-day n.a. 12,514 n.a. 1,104 Overage male, workable n.a. 1, Overage female, workable 11,769 4,722 2,264 Numbers of over age Kolkhozniki who didn't achieve legal minimum unit of workday (under 60 unit of work-day) Underage members n.a. 5,946 n.a. n.a. n.a. 13,329 10,047 Source: ; ЦДООСО. Ф.4. Оп. 35. Д Л об. (also in Колхозная жизнь на Урале , Москва, 2006, C.304.) 1940; ЦДООСО. Ф. 4. Оп. 35. Д Л (also in Колхозная жизнь на Урале , Москва, 2006, C.320.) below. This decrease of using employed work force in Kolkhoz of the State is insufficient. Employment of work force is in violation of the Charter of the Agricultural Artel. In our State, there are many violations of the same kind. 13,329 Kolkhozniki didn t satisfy minimum unit of work-day, 2,792 Kolkhozniki didn t get Table 3 Numbers of Kolkhozniki who didn't achieve even one unit of work-day in Sverdlovsk State (excluding underage member) Male 9,290 n.a. 1, Female 10,002 n.a. 4,722 2, Total 19,292 11,769 6,569 2,792 1,104 even one unit of work-day, 89,951 Kolkhozniki get less than 100 unit of work-day, and 1,616 Kolkhoz were dependent on employment of labor force. Percentage in whole number of Kolkhozniki This assessment indicates that Source: ЦДООСО. Ф. 4. Оп. 35. Д Л (also in Колхозная жизнь на Ура ле Москва C.320.) in spite of decreasing use of 3 Source: Центр документации общественных организаций Свердловской бласти (ЦДООСО). Ф. 4. Оп. 35. Д Л об. (also in Колхозная жизнь на Урале Москва C ).This document was written in May 1940 by deputy vice chief, Sverdlovsk State Department of national economic calculation, and chief, section of agricultural account, Sverdlovsk State Department of national economic calculation. 4

5 employed labor, dependence on employment of labor force in their core work, cultivation, was still widely seen, a basic violation of the Charter. It is noteworthy that about 77% of all Kolkhoz in the State, 1,616 Kolkhoz, still used employed labor force, though the number of employment of labor force remarkably decreased from 1937 to Here it can be said that there are in fact many Kolkhoz after the year 1935, which deviate from what Kolkhoz should have been from the view point of Stalin regime. Such Kolkhoz may have existed so many in 1936 and 1937 especially, according to the trend of usage of employed labor force and trend of the number of Kolkhozniki who didn t get even one unit of work-day. 1.2 Incentives of using employed external work force Let us consider the following quotation from the document above. Kolkhoz spent a lot of money on payments for employed work force. In amount, 5,101,628 rubles were spent for the purpose above from Kolkhoz accounts (in Sverdlovsk State), but most of that money could be spent on payments for Kolkhoz members. Here, we see how a large amount of money was spent on the employment of work force by cash income of Kolkhoz, with concrete figures. It should be also added that Kolkhoz members chose to spend money for employment of external work force in exchange for decreased cash stock. The important point to note is this: What was the incentive for Kolkhoz peasants to avoid cultivation work in their own Kolkhoz, at the expense of cash money of Kolkhoz? The following sentence of the document offers some suggestion to understand. With suitable organization and discipline to regulate Kolkhoz works, Kolkhoz in our State could have gotten through their work without employment of work force, and they could have provided highly much more work force for industrial sector than that of actual achievement. There is a suggestion here that in those days in Sverdlovsk State there were a lot of demands on the work force, and the necessity for labor transfer from agricultural sector to industrial was very high, with the background that Stalin administration forced this industry-centered economic plan on the Union nationwide. Here we can point out the possibility that a Kolkhoz member who lived not far from a factory might choose to work there, and avoid cultivation work in his own Kolkhoz, at the expense of cash income from Kolkhoz. And external work force, Kolkhozniki of other Kolkhoz or independent farmer, who might want to earn some cash, might fill lack of work force there. There is another possibility: Kolkhoz members might choose working in their garden plots of their own houses, not in common land of Kolkhoz, because they could dispose of products from their garden plot relatively freely. The amount of working hours that was devoted to the work in garden plots 5

6 might increase, because the earnings from common Kolkhoz working such as cultivation works were very little, not enough to survive on. It was this situation unusual and unexpected from the viewpoint of Stalinism that there was much employment of external work force in Kolkhoz, in other words, many violations of core regulation of the new Kolkhoz Charter. But this situation was caused by such incentives for Kolkhoz peasants to avoid cultivation work at their own Kolkhoz, and these incentives were the result of Stalin s extreme industrialization strategy as well as the survival strategy of peasants. 2. Case study of a Kolkhoz and policy change of Stalin Regime We have discussed the use of employed labor force by Kolkhoz in Sverdlovsk State in general. Let us devote more space to discussing the concrete situation there, examining some specific cases of Kolkhoz. The following is an example of usage of employed external labor force in a Kolkhoz, located in Komensk district (raion), the name of which is Proletarka. Every Kolkhoz should submit annual documents to Soviet government, and in the State Archive of Sverdlovsk State (GASO/ГАСО) there are annual documents of Kolkhoz Proletarka, submitted to People s Commissariat of Land, and the documents include annual accounting reports of that Kolkhoz from 1936 to , with specific figures (see Table 4 and Table 5). Table 4 Dvor and Kolkhozniki of "Proletarka" Jan.1, 1937 Jan.1, 1938 Jan.1, 1939 Jan.1, 1940 Number of Dvor (including single persons) Number of Kolkhozniki (excluding withdrawal persons as of Jan. 1) Over age of 16, workable Age from 12 to Other Kolkhozniki who went out from Kolkhoz as of Jan. 1 (Red Army, school, seasonal work, service) Source: 1937 ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л. 6 об. 4 ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело)

7 Table 5 Annual Fiscal Statements of Kolkhoz "Proletarka" (extracts) (unit: rubles) plan result plan result plan result plan result Total cash income - 57, , , , Tax on cash income 3,010 2,795 2,813 1,786 4, , ,500 4, Insurance cost 3,000 1,700 3,200 2,020 2,700 7, ,200 4, Other expenditure 600 2, Deduction to undivided fund 13,400 6,883 14,000 2, ,122 12,765 9,179 Expediture relevant to production Repair of facility, machine 1,530 1, , , ,000 1, Purchase of seed, plant ,500 2, ,000 3, Purchase of feed for animal ,000 1, ,000 4,095 Medical cost of animal Purchase of fertilizer Purchase of tools to exterminate vermin Purchase of fuel and lubricating oil 2,500 3, ,500 4, ,000 4, ,000 3, Purchase of materials for supporting firm Payment for work of MTS 1, , ,000 1, Payment for employed specialist (veterinarian, agriculturist, etc.) 1,300 2, ,000 2, ,300 2, Purchase of flour mill 1, ,000 2, , , Payment for employed work force 3,000 2, Other expenditure, cost (including employment of work force) 3,700 6, (unidentified) 8, (breakdown) Employment of work force 5,500 12,809.5 Fine and penalty 2,439.7 Total expenditure relevant to production 12,780 16, ,450 27,764.2 (unidentified) 20, ,357 20, Payment for employed administrative personnel Other expenditure , , , Total expenditure for administrative work 1, , , , Payment for employed work force relevant to construction work 4,000 5,093 7,000 1, Deduction to specific fund 3,200 1,000 4,500 2,000 Source: 1936 ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр.(дело) 451. Л. 4 об ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр.(дело) 454. Л ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр.(дело) 458. Л. 6-6 об ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр.(дело) 459. Л об Case of Kolkhoz Proletarka Table 4 indicates that in that Kolkhoz in 1936 the number of Dvor (unit of rural family) were 86 and the number of Kolkhozniki were 302. It will be clear from Table 5 that the proportion of expenditure on employment of work force to the whole cash expenditure is large. There is no data on the amount of expenditure on employment of work force itself for the year 1936, because the item of other expenditure, cost in Table 5 includes it. 7

8 In 1936, in expenditure relevant to production, there is an item Other expenditure, cost (including employment of work force). In the item is included payment for employment of work force, so in the year 1936 the concrete figure of the payment is not clear, but in 1937, there is a concrete figure of Employment of work force, that is, 12,809.5 Table 6 Incentive and Usage of Employed Work Force of Kolkhoz "Proletarka" (unit: person-day) Cultivation Construction Individual farmer 307 Member of other Kolkhoz , Firms (supporting) Other works Service Driving vehicle Total person-day 1,473 Source: 1936 ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л. 6 об ,078 2,713 1, ruble. According to Table 6, in the year 1936 total person-days of employed work force in the Kolkhoz is 1,078, and in 1937 that figure is 2,713, about 2.5 times as much as that of So, with simple calculation, payment of ruble per one person-day in 1937 is about 4.72 ruble. The figure of payment for employment of work force in 1937 is about 20% of the total cash income of the Kolkhoz (63, ruble) and about 46% of the total expenditure relevant to production (27,764.2 ruble). It should be noticed that in the payment for Employment of work force, payment for employed construction workers is included, so we cannot figure out the size of payment for external work force engaged in core work of Kolkhoz, cultivation work, with the data of 1937 year. But the data indicate that the payment for construction workers is 5,093 ruble in 1938 and 1, ruble in 1939, so the estimated figure of payment for cultivation work might be around ruble in 1938 and ruble in Table 7 Trend of participation in common works of Kolkhoz "Proletarka" Over age 16 Over age 12, under 16 Total Male Female Year Under 50 unit of work-day unit of working -day unit of work-day unit of working -day unit of work-day over 400 unit of work-day Total number of Kolkhozniki who participated in common works of Kolkhoz Numbers of Kolkhozniki without achievement of work-day unit Source: 1936 ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л ГАСО. Ф. р Оп. 1. Ед. хр. (Дело) Л. 6 об. 8

9 This data coincide with the general trend, that is, decrease in employment of external work force by Kolkhoz. Then, from the viewpoint of participation of Kolkhozniki in common Kolkhoz work, Table 7 indicates that in the Kolkhoz, in the year 1936, about 25% of Kolkhozniki achieved only 50 or less work-day units, and at the same time the Kolkhoz employed external work force for cultivation, according to Table 6. Here, we notice that in the Kolkhoz Proletarka, many members didn t engage in their core work ---cultivation, and the Kolkhoz employed external work force by way of compensation. Table 6 shows that among these employed external work force, about 30% in 1936, and about 54% in 1937 were engaged in cultivation works. It could be noticed, from what has been discussed, that the figures of Kolkhoz Proletarka coincide with general trend of employment of external work force in whole Sverdlovsk State Policy change of Stalin regime toward Kolkhoz Being confronted with these widespread violations of the new Charter s regulation, in 1938 the Stalin regime had changed its policy toward Kolkhoz peasants, from concessionary to offensive. The communist party and Soviet government decided to enact the laws On the prohibition against expulsion of Kolkhoz members from their Kolkhoz, and On the unjust distribution of income in Kolkhoz. In the next year, 1939, for Kolkhozniki the regulation of minimum work-days assignment of common work in Kolkhoz was established legally. According to this legal minimum work-day regulation, those Kolkhoz members who didn t achieve minimum work-days of common work in their Kolkhoz should lose their benefit as a member of Kolkhoz. In May of the same year, a new decision was promulgated: On the measures for protection of common Kolkhoz land from seizure by members, which prohibited Kolkhozniki from unregulated diversion of common land of Kolkhoz to their own garden plot purposes. These changes of policy toward Kolkhoz peasants caused decrease in the number of Kolkhozniki who didn t achieve even one work-day unit in 1938, and at the same time the number of employment of external work force by Kolkhoz decreased. 3. Conclusions As discussed, in Kolkhoz there was much use of external work force, in violations of the new version of the Kolkhoz Charter after 1935, especially until Local Soviet power criticized those 9

10 Kolkhoz which used excessive external labor but there were very little common work by Kolkhoz member, with such expression as appearance of Sovkhoz in a form of Kolkhoz, in the proceeding of the Council of Sverdlovsk State On Expulsion of Kolkhoziki from Kolkhoz as of March 19, Here, the member of Council used metaphors such as Sovkhoz in a form of Kolkhoz. Sovkhoz was state firm full of employed workers, and all workers including cultivation workers were paid wages, and Kolkhoz was cooperative, in which members were not workers who were paid wages. So, against the existence of many Kolkhoz which used external employed work force on temporary cash pay, the local power used the metaphor appearance of Sovkhoz in a form of Kolkhoz, finding common ground between such Kolkhoz and Sovkhoz. There was large difference between them, however. Sovkhoz workers were guaranteed their income and pension by Soviet power as they were members of state firm, but Kolkhoz members were not guaranteed their income and pension by Soviet power, because they were only members of a cooperative, not of a state firm. It was only after World War II that the pension system was extended to the members of Kolkhoz. With no guarantee of income by the Soviet State, Kolkhozniki had to act so as to survive and they neglected the Kolkhoz Charter and other regulations, independently and sometimes systematically. Here, Kolkhoz members were not exemplary confirmists the Stalin regime expected, but tough peasants who acted in their own way. 5 ЦДООСО. Ф. 4. Оп. 31. Д. 30. Л (also in Колхозная жизнь на Урале Москва C. 207). 10