Fists in the ussr. What was the scale of dispossession? The detrimental effect of the development of usury and kulaks in rural life

The cousins ​​of historians - physicists - begin any discussion with the words "let's agree on terms." Historians do fine without it. It's a pity. Sometimes it would be worth it. For example, who is a fist? Well, there is nothing to think about: this is a "fair", hardworking owner, mercilessly ruined and destroyed by the machine of Stalin's collectivization. Yes, but why should the collectivization machine destroy its “fair” owner, who is not a competitor or an obstacle to it? He manages on his ten or twenty dessiatines outside the collective farm - and let him manage, but if he wants, he goes to the collective farm. Why ruin it?

Not otherwise, as out of infernal malice - for there is no economic answer here. It will never happen, because the directives of the USSR authorities constantly repeated: do not confuse kulaks and wealthy peasants! Therefore, there was a difference between them, moreover, visible to the naked eye.

So what did the naked eye of a semi-literate county secretary see that is not visible to today's graduate historian? Let's remember school Marxism - those who still managed to learn in the Soviet school. How is a class defined? And the memory on the machine gives out: the relation to the means of production. How does the attitude of the reference owner to the means of production differ from the attitude of the middle peasant? Yes, nothing! And the fist?

Well, since they were going to destroy him "as a class," then he was a class, and this attitude was somehow different.

These townspeople will always confuse!

So who are the fists?

This issue was of concern to the Soviet leadership as well. For example, Kamenev in 1925 argued that any farm with more than 10 acres of crops is a kulak farm. But 10 acres in the Pskov region and in Siberia are completely different areas. In addition, 10 dessiatines for a family of five and fifteen are also two big differences.

Molotov, who was responsible for work in the countryside in the Central Committee, in 1927 referred to the kulaks as peasants who rent land and hire temporary (as opposed to seasonal) workers. But the middle peasant could also rent land and hire workers - especially the former.

Rykov, the head of the People's Commissariat, referred to the kulak as well-to-do farms using hired labor and the owners of rural industrial establishments. This is closer, but somehow everything is vague. Why shouldn't a strong labor owner have, for example, a mill or an oil mill?

What unites Kamenev, Molotov and Rykov? Only one thing: all three are city-born. But the "All-Union headman" Mikhail Ivanovich Kalinin, a peasant by birth, gives a completely different definition. At a meeting of the Politburo devoted to cooperation, he said: “The fist is not the owner of property in general, but the one who uses this property in a kulak manner; usuriously exploiting the local population, giving away capital for growth, using funds at usurious interest.

An unexpected twist, isn't it? And Kalinin is not alone in this approach. People's Commissar of Agriculture A.P. Smirnov wrote in Pravda in 1925, which served as the main practical, corrective guide for local leaders: “We must clearly distinguish between two types of farming in the well-to-do part of the village. The first type of well-to-do economy is purely usurious, engaged in the exploitation of low-power farms not only in the production process (farming), but mainly through all kinds of enslaving deals, through village petty trade and intermediation, all kinds of "friendly" credit with "divine" interest. The second type of well-to-do economy is a strong labor economy, striving to strengthen itself as much as possible in production terms ... "

Now that's a completely different matter! Not only and not so much an exploiter of farm laborers, but a village small trader, an intermediary in transactions and, most importantly, a usurer.

Rural usury is a very special phenomenon. They practically did not give money for growth in the countryside. A system of natural usury was adopted there - the settlement of loans was done with bread, own labor or any services. (Looking ahead: that is why the so-called "podkulachniki" - the "group of influence" of the kulak - are mainly the poor.) And in any village, all the inhabitants knew perfectly well who was simply lending money (even at interest, if necessary), and who made it a trade in which he grows rich.

World eating technology

A vivid picture of such a craft was drawn in a letter to the Krasnaya Derevnya magazine by a certain peasant, Philip Ovseenko. He begins, however, in such a way that you will not undermine.

“... They shout about the kulak that he is so and so, but how not to twist, and the kulak always turns out to be both thrifty and diligent, and pays taxes more than others. They shout that, they say, the peasants should not use other people's labor, hire a worker. But to this I have to argue that this is completely wrong. Indeed, in order for our state to raise agriculture, to increase peasant goods, it is necessary to increase the sowing area. And this can only be done by well-to-do owners ... And the fact that the peasant has a worker is only good for the state, and therefore it must first of all support such well-to-do people, because they are the support of the state. Yes, and the employee is also a pity, because if he is not given a job, it will not be found, and there are so many unemployed. And when he is on the farm, he feels good. Who will give work to the unemployed in the village, or who will feed a neighbor with his family in the spring " .

Do you recognize the reasoning? The rhetoric of "social partnership" has hardly changed in 90 years. But this, however, is only a saying, and now the tale has begun - about how exactly a kind person feeds his neighbor with his family ...

“There are many other bitter peasants: either there is no horse, or there is nothing to sow. And we also help them out, because it is said that love your neighbors as brothers. You will give one horse a day, either to plow, or to go to the forest, to another you will sprinkle the seeds. Why, you can't give for nothing, because good does not fall from the sky to us. It was acquired by their own labor. Another time I would be glad not to give, but he will come, he will directly lament: help out, they say, there is hope for you. Well, give me the seeds, and then you take off half of it - this is for your own seeds. Moreover, at the gathering, they will be called a fist, or an exploiter (that's also a word). This is for doing a good Christian deed ... "

I use it for half the harvest. With a yield of 50 poods per tithe, it turns out that the "benefactor" lends his neighbor seeds at the rate of 100% for three months, 35 poods - 50%. Balzac's Gobsek would have strangled himself with envy. Incidentally, he has not yet mentioned what he takes for the horse. And for a horse, working off was supposed - sometimes three days, and sometimes a week in a day. Christ, if my memory serves me, seems to teach somehow differently ...

“It turns out differently: the other is beating, beating and will abandon the land, or lease it. Every year he does not process. Now he will eat the seeds, then there is no plow, then something else. Comes and asks for bread. Of course, you will take the land for yourself, your neighbors will cultivate it for your debts and take off the harvest from it. And what about the old master? What you sow is what you reap. He who does not work does not eat. And, moreover, he voluntarily leased the land in a sober state. After all, again, do not rent it, it would not have been developed, a direct loss to the state. And so I again helped out - I sowed it, so I should be grateful for this. Yes, only where there! For such labors, they also defame me ... Let everyone know that the kulak lives by its labor, runs its farm, helps its neighbors, and on it, one might say, the state maintains itself. Let there be no name "kulak" in the village, because the kulak is the most hardworking peasant, from whom there is no harm but benefit, and both the district peasants and the state itself receive this benefit. "

From this sentimental letter it is clear why the peasants call the kulak a world-eater. In it, as in a textbook, almost the entire scheme of intra-village exploitation is described. In the spring, when there is no grain left on the poor farms, the time of the usurer comes. For a sack of grain to feed a starving family, the poor will give two sacks in August. Seed bread - half of the harvest. Horse for a day - several days (up to a week) working off. In the spring, for debts or for a couple of sacks of grain, the kulak takes his allotment from a horseless neighbor, other neighbors cultivate this field for debts, and the whole harvest goes to the "good owner." Economic power over neighbors is followed by political power: at a village gathering, the kulak can automatically count on the support of all its debtors, goes to the village council itself or brings its people there, and this is how it becomes the true owner of the village, on which there is no longer any government.

Well, this is a completely different matter. This is already a class that uses its means of production in a completely different way from the middle peasant. And the question is: will such a “benefactor” remain indifferent to the collective farm, which cooperates with the poor part of the village, thereby knocking out the food supply from under it?

Greed has ruined

Another "class" feature of the kulak is its specific participation in the grain trade. Accumulating at home large masses bread, the kulaks did not release them on the market at all, deliberately inflating prices. In those conditions, it was actually work to organize hunger, so the 107th article on such citizens simply cried.

... In January 1928, in the midst of the "grain war", members of the Politburo dispersed across the country to manage grain procurements. On January 15, Stalin went to Siberia. This is what he said in his speeches before party and Soviet workers: “You say that the grain procurement plan is tense, that it is impossible to fulfill. Why is it impracticable, where did you get this from? Isn't it a fact that your harvest this year is really unprecedented? Isn't it a fact that the grain procurement plan for this year in Siberia is almost the same as last year? "

Please note: the complaint about the unfeasibility of plans seems to be the theme of all grain procurement campaigns. The reason is clear: you will complain, maybe the plan will be knocked off.

“… You say that the kulaks do not want to hand over the grain, that they are waiting for the price increase and prefer to conduct unbridled speculation. It's right. But the kulaks are not just expecting a rise in prices, they are demanding that prices rise three times in comparison with state prices. Do you think you can satisfy the kulaks? The poor and a significant part of the middle peasants have already handed over grain to the state at state prices. Can the state be allowed to pay three times more for bread to the kulaks than to the poor and middle peasants? "

Now such actions are punishable in accordance with antitrust laws, and for some reason no one complains. Could it be an allergy to terms?

“… If the kulaks conduct unbridled speculation on grain prices, why don't you attract them for speculation? Don't you know that there is a law against speculation - Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, by virtue of which those guilty of speculation are brought to justice, and the goods are confiscated in favor of the state? Why don't you apply this law against bread speculators? Are you really afraid to disturb the peace of the gentlemen of the kulaks?! ..

You say that your prosecutorial and judicial authorities are not ready for this case ... I saw several dozen representatives of your prosecutorial and judicial authorities. Almost all of them live with the kulaks, are freeloaders among the kulaks and, of course, try to live in peace with the kulaks. To my question, they replied that the kulaks' apartment is cleaner and better fed. It is clear that one cannot expect anything worthwhile and useful for the Soviet state from such representatives of the prosecutor's and judicial authorities ... "

So it seems to us, too, for some reason ...

“I suggest:

a) demand from the kulaks the immediate surrender of all surplus grain at state prices;

b) if the kulaks refuse to obey the law - bring them to justice under Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR and confiscate their grain surpluses in favor of the state so that 25% of the confiscated grain is distributed among the poor and low-powered middle peasants at low state prices or in long-term loan order ".

Then, in January, the Siberian Regional Committee decided: cases under Art. 107 to investigate in an emergency, by visiting sessions of the people's courts in 24 hours, to issue sentences within three days without the participation of the defense. At the same meeting, it was decided to issue a circular of the regional court, the regional prosecutor and the plenipotentiary of the OGPU, which, in particular, prohibited judges from passing acquittals or conditional sentences under Article 107.

A certain “mitigating circumstance” for the authorities can only be the level of corruption - without the circular, the lured law enforcement officers would not have done anything at all. In addition, the 107th article began to be applied when the amount of surplus in the household exceeded 2000 poods. It is somehow difficult to imagine the possibility of an investigative or judicial error if the owner has 32 tons of bread in the barn. What, did they put it in grain by grain and did not notice how it had accumulated? Even taking into account the fact that this size was subsequently reduced - on average, the seizures amounted to 886 poods (14.5 tons) - it is still difficult.

However, given the trifling term of imprisonment under Article 107 - up to one year (actually, up to three, but this is in the case of a conspiracy of merchants, and you try to prove this conspiracy), the main punishment was just the confiscation of the surplus. Didn't want to sell bread - give it away for nothing.

Where does so much bread come from?

As you can see, there is nothing unusual about this. IN emergency situations even the most market-oriented of the market states are stepping on the throat of their own song and introducing laws against speculation - if they do not want their populations to die of hunger en masse. In practice, the problem is solved simply: if the government loves bribes more than it fears food riots, laws are not introduced; if they give little or are scary, they are introduced. Even the Provisional Government, corrupted to the last limit, tried to realize the grain monopoly, but failed. And the Bolshevik Council of People's Commissars was able to - in fact, that is the whole difference, and hence all the resentment against them "brothers-socialists" in terms of agrarian policy.

But back to our fists. Let's count a little. With a yield of 50 pounds, 800 pounds from a tithe is 18 acres. Plus, the owners' own consumption, the feeding of the farm laborers and livestock, the seed fund - which, in a large farm, will pull dessiatines, say, seven. Total - 25 dessiatines. In 1928, allotments of 25 acres and more had only 34 thousand farms - less than one per village. And about 3% of farms were recognized as kulak, i.e. 750 thousand. And after all, many had not 800 poods, but thousands, or even tens of thousands. Where, I wonder, did Stalin get the figure he named in Siberia? “Look at the kulak farms: there are barns and sheds full of grain, the bread is under sheds due to the lack of storage space, in the kulak farms there are grain surpluses of 50-60 thousand poods for each farm, not counting reserves for seeds, food, and livestock feed. .. "Where did he find farms with such reserves? On the Don, in the Tersk Territory, in the Kuban? Or is it a poetic exaggeration? But even if we reduce the figure he announced by an order of magnitude, it still turns out to be 5-6 thousand poods.

But here another question is more important. Even if we are talking about 800 poods - where does so much bread come from? From your own field? There was no such number of such fields in the USSR. So where did it come from?

The answer, in general, lies on the surface. Firstly, one should not forget about the natural usury in which the village was enmeshed. All these "gratuities", the repayment of debts to "use", the lease of land and working off for debts, bag after bag, lay in the barns in hundreds and thousands of poods. And secondly, let's think about how the sale of grain went in the village? It is good if the fair is located on the edge of the village, so that you can carry your few bags there on the hump. And if not? And there is no horse either, so there is nothing to take out? However, even if there is a sivka, is there any desire to drive her for tens of miles with ten poods? And meanwhile money is needed - to pay the tax, and to buy at least something, but it is necessary.

Between the low-power peasant and the market there must exist a village grain buyer - one who, in turn, will deal with the urban wholesaler. Depending on the combination of greed and efficiency, he can give his fellow villagers either a little more, or a little less than the state price - so that this penny does not force a poor peasant to go to the market or to the sales center.

The village kulak simply could not help being a buyer of bread - how could such an income be missed. However, he was. Let us quote again the report of the OGPU - the all-seeing eye of the Soviet government: « Lower Volga region. In the Lysogorsk District of the Saratov District, the kulaks and the well-to-do are systematically speculating in bread. Kulaks in the village. B.-Kopny buy grain from the peasants and export it in large quantities to the city of Saratov. In order to grind bread out of turn, the kulaks solder the workers and the mill manager.

North Caucasian Territory. In a number of places in the Kushchevsky and Myasnikovsky districts (Donskoy district), mass grinding of grain into flour is noted. Some farmers are engaged in the systematic export and sale of flour on the city market ... Wheat prices reach 3 rubles. for a pood. Wealthy and strong kulaks, buying up on the spot for 200-300 poods. bread, grind it into flour and take it away on carts to other regions, where they sell it for 6–7 rubles. for a pood.

Ukraine . Fist hut. Novoselovki (Romensky District) buys up grain through the mediation of three poor people, who, under the guise of buying up grain for personal consumption, procure grain for him. The kulak grinds the purchased grain into flour and sells it at the bazaar.

Belotserkovsky district. In the Fastovsky and Mironovsky districts, the kulaks organized their agents for the purchase of grain, which procure bread for them in the surrounding villages and nearby districts. "

As you can see, at the village level, a private wholesaler and a kulak are one and the same character, a natural mediator between the manufacturer and the market. In fact, the kulak and the Nepman are two links in the same chain, and their interests are completely the same: to pick up the market for themselves, not to let other players in there, and first of all, the state.

The trouble was not only that the kulaks themselves were playing for higher prices, but even more so that they were leading other peasants. Everyone who brought at least something to the market was interested in high bread prices, and the middle peasants joined the boycott of state supplies, who cannot be attracted under Article 107 - if it is applied to those who have not a thousand, but a hundred poods in the barn, then why would not immediately start a general requisition?

At the same time, almost half of the farms in the country were so weak that they could not feed themselves on their own bread until the next harvest. The high prices of these peasants were completely ruined, and they hung on the neck of the state. Thus, in a free market, the state twice sponsored the merchants - first buying bread from them at high prices set by them, and then supplying the poor with cheap bread ruined by the same grain merchants. If there is a powerful trade lobby in the country that pays for politicians, this pumping can go on forever, but the Nepmen were weak in buying Politburo members. Easier to kill ...

All these problems - both worldliness and price gouging - in the course of the Bolsheviks' plan agrarian reform were solved economically, and rather quickly. If we take into account the vector of development, it becomes clear that collective farms, provided with state benefits and state support, have every chance to turn into fairly cultural farms with quite decent marketability in a matter of years (already at the beginning of the 30s, the grain procurement plan for them was established in the amount of approximately 30-35% of gross tax). And what follows from this? And it follows from this that if not 5%, but 50% of farms are collectivized, then private traders will simply lose the opportunity not only to play on the market, but to influence it in general - state supplies of collective farms will cover all the needs of the country. And taking into account the fact that in the USSR bread was sold to the population at very low prices, the meaning of engaging in grain trade will disappear completely.

The kulak, deprived, on the one hand, of what is siphoned from the poor for debts of grain, and on the other, of the opportunity to influence prices, can trade in the products of his economy as he wants and where he wants. Put in the position of not a large, but a small farmer, he cannot define or decide anything from his economic niche, a closet.

A purely rhetorical question: will the NEP and the kulak resign themselves to such plans of the authorities?

About this - in the next article ...

Fist- before the revolution of 1917 - a reseller, maklak, prasol, broker, esp. in the grain trade, in bazaars and marinas, he himself is penniless, he lives by deception, counting, measuring; lighthouse eagle. eagle, tarkhan tamb. Varyag mosk. a huckster with small money, travels to villages, buying up canvas, yarn, flax, hemp, lamb, stubble, oil, etc. prasol, dust, money dealer, drover, buy-in and cattle driver; peddler, peddler. (dictionary by V.I.Dahl)

Pre-revolutionary terminology

Initially, the term "kulak" had an exclusively negative connotation, representing an assessment of a dishonest person, which was then reflected in the elements of Soviet propaganda. Back in the 1870s, A. N. Engelhardt, who studied the Russian peasantry, wrote:

At the same time, nevertheless, "the authorities imposed a higher tax on the kulaks, demanded the sale of grain to the state at fixed prices, limited the kulak land use, limited the size of the kulak economy [... [but did not yet pursue a policy of liquidating the kulaks." However, already in 1928, the course towards the kulak was curtailed, giving way to the course of eliminating the kulaks as a class.

However, this phenomenon was only temporary in the life of the term "kulak" and was associated with the active support of the peasantry during the New Economic Policy and a little earlier.

1. wage labor is used systematically;
2. the presence of a mill, oil mill, grinder, drying ..., the use of a mechanical engine ...;
3. renting out complex agricultural machines with mechanical motors;
4. engaging in trade, usury, mediation, the presence of unearned income (for example, clergymen).

The resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of October 13, 1930, which followed JV Stalin's article "Dizzy with Success", changed the criteria for classifying peasant farms as kulak, in particular, the farms of clergymen were no longer considered kulak.

In the course of the forcible collectivization of agriculture, carried out in the USSR in 2000, one of the directions of state policy was the suppression of anti-Soviet actions of the peasants and the related "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" - "dispossession" labor, all means of production, land, civil rights, and eviction to remote areas of the country, and sometimes - execution.

On January 30, 1930, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) adopted a Resolution. According to this ruling, fists were divided into three categories:

• the first category - counter-revolutionary activists, organizers of terrorist acts and uprisings,
• the second category - the rest of the counter-revolutionary asset from the richest kulaks and semi-landowners,
• the third category is the rest of the fists.

The heads of the kulak families of the 1st category were arrested, and the cases of their actions were referred to the special forces consisting of representatives of the OGPU, regional committees (regional committees) of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the prosecutor's office. Family members of 1st category kulaks and 2nd category kulaks were subject to eviction to remote areas of the USSR or remote areas of a given region (territory, republic) for special settlement. The kulaks, assigned to the third category, settled within the region on new lands specially allotted for them outside the collective farm massifs.

It was decided to “liquidate the counterrevolutionary kulak activists by imprisonment in concentration camps, stopping against the organizers of terrorist acts, counterrevolutionary uprisings and insurgent organizations before using the highest measure of repression” (Art. 3, p.a).

As repressive measures, the OGPU was proposed in relation to the first and second categories:

• send 60,000 to concentration camps, evict 150,000 kulaks (Section II, Article 1);
• deportation to uninhabited and sparsely populated areas with the expectation of the following regions: Northern Territory 70 thousand families, Siberia - 50 thousand families, Ural - 20 - 25 thousand families, Kazakhstan - 20 - 25 thousand families "(Section II, Article 4). The deportees' property was confiscated, the limit of funds was up to 500 rubles per family.

The joint Decree of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of August 7, 1932 "" ("law from the seventh to the eighth", "the law on spikelets") provides for the most severe measures of "judicial repression" for the theft of collective farm and cooperative property - shooting with confiscation of property, in As “a measure of judicial repression in cases of protecting collective farms and collective farmers from violence and threats from kulak elements,” imprisonment was envisaged for a term of 5 to 10 years with imprisonment in concentration camps without the right to amnesty.

The Russian village was most often called "kulak" wealthy peasant, who received wealth by "enslaving" his fellow villagers and kept the whole "world" (rural community) "in a fist" (depending on himself). The nickname "kulak" was received by rural peasants who had an unclean, unearned income, in their opinion, usurers, buyers and traders. The consciousness of peasants has always been based on the idea that the only honest source of wealth is hard physical labor. The origin of the wealth of usurers and merchants was associated primarily with their dishonesty - the merchant, for example, was considered a "parasite of society, making a profit on objects obtained by other people's labor", because, according to the conviction of peasants engaged in direct production, "if you do not cheat - you will not sell"

Initially, the term "kulak" had an exclusively negative connotation, representing an assessment of a dishonest person, which was then reflected in the elements of Soviet propaganda. Back in the 1870s, A. N. Engelhardt, who studied the Russian peasantry, wrote:

R. Gvozdev in his monograph "Kulak-usury and its socio-economic significance" as early as 1899 wrote about the closeness of the concepts of a good owner and an efficient owner and a peasant-kulak, stating that "it is extremely difficult to distinguish the sphere of kulak-usury operations from enterprises. of a purely economic nature "," the kulak is a legitimate brainchild of the process of initial accumulation. "

Here is the original text: "Now the situation is that every peasant who calls himself, perhaps, a working peasant - some people love this word very much - but if you call a working peasant one who has collected hundreds of poods of grain by his own labor and even without any hired labor, and now he sees that, perhaps, if he keeps these hundreds of poods, then he can sell them not for 6 rubles, but sell them to speculators or sell them to an exhausted, hungry city worker who came with a hungry family, who will give 200 rubles per pood - a peasant who hides hundreds of poods, who can withstand them in order to raise the price and get even 100 rubles per pood, turns into an exploiter - worse than a robber. " Now let's compare with the above. This is called pulling phrases out of context, reversing the meaning of what is said, not quoting.

At the same time, there are many contradictions and ambiguities in the delimitation of the terms "middle peasant" and "kulak", which are found in the works of V. I. Lenin, who defined the ideology Soviet power for many years, the very course of the dispossession policy. Sometimes Vladimir Ilyich nevertheless points to a certain sign of the kulaks - the exploitation of labor, differentiating it from the middle peasant:

As a result, the complexity of this terminology is complemented by the fact that a little later V.I.Lenin allows for the exploitation of labor power by peasants-seryads and even the accumulation of capital:

At the same time, nevertheless, "the power imposed a higher tax on the kulak, demanded the sale of grain to the state at fixed prices, limited the kulak land use, limited the size of the kulak economy ... but did not yet pursue a policy of liquidating the kulaks." However, already in 1928, the course towards the kulak was curtailed, giving way to the course of eliminating the kulaks as a class.

However, this phenomenon was only temporary in the life of the term "kulak" and was associated with the active support of the peasantry during the New Economic Policy and a little earlier.

1. hired labor is used systematically;
2. the presence of a mill, oil mill, grinder, drying ..., the use of a mechanical engine ...,
3. renting out complex agricultural machines with mechanical motors
4. rental of premises
5. engaging in trade, usury, mediation, the presence of unearned income (for example, clergymen)

In the course of the forcible collectivization of agriculture, carried out in the USSR in 2000, one of the directions of state policy was the suppression of anti-Soviet actions of the peasants and the related "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" - "dispossession" labor, all means of production, land, civil rights, and eviction to remote areas of the country, and sometimes - execution.

On January 30, 1930, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) adopted a Resolution. According to this ruling, fists were divided into three categories:

• the first category - counter-revolutionary activists, organizers of terrorist acts and uprisings,
• the second category - the rest of the counter-revolutionary asset from the richest kulaks and semi-landowners,
• the third category is the rest of the fists.

The heads of the kulak families of the 1st category were arrested, and the cases of their actions were referred to the special forces consisting of representatives of the OGPU, regional committees (regional committees) of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the prosecutor's office. Family members of 1st category kulaks and 2nd category kulaks were subject to eviction to remote areas of the USSR or remote areas of a given region (territory, republic) for special settlement. The kulaks, assigned to the third category, settled within the region on new lands specially allotted for them outside the collective farm massifs.

It was decided to “liquidate the counter-revolutionary kulak activists by imprisonment in concentration camps, stopping against the organizers of terrorist acts, counter-revolutionary uprisings and insurgent organizations before using the highest measure of repression” (Art. 3, p.a)

As repressive measures, the OGPU was proposed in relation to the first and second categories:

• send 60,000 to concentration camps, evict 150,000 kulaks (section II, article 1)
• deportation to uninhabited and sparsely populated areas with the expectation of the following regions: Northern Territory 70 thousand families, Siberia - 50 thousand families, Ural - 20 - 25 thousand families, Kazakhstan - 20 - 25 thousand families using "(Section II, Article 4). The deportees' property was confiscated, the limit of funds was up to 500 rubles per family.

The special report of the OGPU on February 15 contained the following report on the operation:

The joint Decree of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of August 7, 1932 "" ("law from the seventh to the eighth", "the law on spikelets") provides for the most severe measures of "judicial repression" for the theft of collective farm and cooperative property - shooting with confiscation of property, in As “a measure of judicial repression in cases of protecting collective farms and collective farmers from violence and threats from kulak elements,” imprisonment was envisaged for a term of 5 to 10 years with imprisonment in concentration camps without the right to amnesty.

On May 24, the Central Executive Committee of the USSR adopts the Resolution "On the Procedure for Restoring the Civil Rights of Former Kulaks," according to which kulaks-special settlers, previously deprived of a number of civil rights, are individually restored.

The final rejection of the dispossession policy is fixed by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated August 13, 1954 No. 1738-789ss "On lifting restrictions on special settlement from former kulaks", thanks to which many of the kulak-special settlers received freedom.

Rehabilitation of persons subjected to dispossession and members of their families is carried out in accordance with the general procedure in accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation "" dated 18.10.1991 N 1761-1.

Notes (edit)

1. GF Dobronozhenko "Who is a kulak: interpretation of the concept of" kulak "!"
2. G.F. Dobronozhenko "Who is a fist: interpretation of the concept of" fist ""
3. Engelhardt A.N. Letters from the village. 1872-1887 M., 1987 S. 521 - 522.
4. Postnikov V.E. South Russian peasantry. M., 1891
5. R. Gvozdev “The kulaks - usury and its social and economic significance. SPb. ", 1899
6. Ermolov A.S. Crop failure and national disaster. SPb., 1892.
7. Great October Socialist Revolution. Encyclopedia. 3rd ed., Add. M., 1987.S. 262; A Brief Political Dictionary. 2nd ed., Add. M., 1980.S. 207; Trapeznikov S.P. Leninism and the agrarian-peasant question: In 2 volumes. M., 1967. V.2. “The historical experience of the CPSU in the implementation of the Leninist cooperative plan. P. 174.
8. Smirnov A. P. "Our main tasks for raising and organizing the peasant economy." M., 1925.S. 22; Pershin A. Two main sources of stratification of the peasantry // Life of Siberia. 1925. No. 3 (31). P. 3.
9. Lenin V.I. Full collection Op. T. 36.S. 447, 501, 59.
10. Lenin V.I. Full collection Op. T. 38.
11. Lenin V.I. Full collection Op. Vol. 41, p. 58.

FIST - EATER

The conversation will focus on kulaks and such a phenomenon as the kulaks. Where did the word "fist" come from? There are many versions. One of the most widespread versions today is the fist, this is a strong business executive who keeps his entire household in a fist. But at the beginning of the twentieth century, another version was more widespread.

One of the main ways to enrich the kulak is to give money or grain to grow. That is: the kulak gives money to its fellow villagers, or gives grain, the seed fund to the poor fellow villagers. Gives with pretty decent percentages. Due to this, he ruins these fellow villagers, due to this he becomes richer.

How did this fist get his money or grain back? So he gave, let's say, grain for growth - this happens, for example, in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, that is, before dispossession of kulaks. According to the law, the kulak has no right to engage in such activities, that is, no usury for individuals, no credit practice was provided. It turns out that he was engaged in activities that, in fact, were illegal. It can be assumed, of course, that he applied to the Soviet court, with a request that his debt be recovered from the debtor. But most likely, it happened differently, that is, there was a banal knocking out of what the debtor owes. It was the extremely tough policy of knocking out debts that gave the kulaks their name.

So who are the fists?

There is a widespread belief that these are the most hardworking peasants who, began to live more richly due to their heroic labor, due to greater skill and hard work. However, the fists were not called those who are richer, who live more satisfyingly. Fists were called those who used the labor of farm laborers, that is, hired labor, and those who engaged in usury in the village. That is, a kulak is a person who gives money in growth, buys up the land of his fellow villagers, and gradually depriving them of land, use them as hired labor.

Fists appeared long before the revolution, and in principle it was a fairly objective process. That is, with the improvement of the land cultivation system, the most normal objective phenomenon is the increase in land plots. A larger field is easier to process, it turns out to be cheaper to process. Large fields can be cultivated with machinery - processing of each individual tithe is cheaper, and, accordingly, such farms are more competitive.

All countries that passed from the agrarian to the industrial phase went through an increase in the size of land allotments. This is clearly illustrated by the example of American farmers, who today are few in the United States, but whose fields stretch far beyond the horizons. This refers to the fields of each individual farmer. Therefore, the consolidation of land plots is not only a natural fact, but even a necessary one. In Europe, this process was called pauperization: land-poor peasants were driven off the land, the land was bought up and passed into the possession of landlords or rich peasants.

What happened to the poor peasants? Usually they were driven into cities, where they either went to the army, to the navy, in the same England, or got a job at enterprises; or begging, plundering, starving to death. To combat this phenomenon, laws against the poor were introduced in England at one time.

And a similar process began in the Soviet Union. It began after the civil war, when the land was redistributed according to the number of eaters, but at the same time the land was in full use of the peasants, that is, the peasant could sell, mortgage, donate the land. This was what the fists took advantage of. For Soviet Union the very situation with the transfer of land to the kulaks was hardly acceptable, since it was connected exclusively with the exploitation of some peasants by other peasants.

There is an opinion that the kulaks were dispossessed according to the principle - if you have a horse, it means that a well-off person means a fist. This is wrong. The fact is that the availability of means of production also implies that someone must work for them. For example, if there are 1-2 horses on the farm, which are used as traction, it is clear that the peasant can work himself. If the farm has 5-10 horses as a pulling force, it is clear that the peasant himself cannot work on this, that he must definitely hire someone who will use these horses.

There were only two criteria for defining a fist. As I have already said, this is an occupation of usurious activity and the use of hired labor. Another thing is that by indirect signs - for example, the presence of a large number of horses or a large number of equipment - it was possible to determine that this fist was really used by hired labor.

And it became necessary to determine what the further path of development of the village will be. The fact that it was necessary to enlarge the farms was quite obvious. However, the path going through pauperization (through the ruin of the poor peasants and their expulsion from the village, or their transformation into hired labor), it was actually very painful, very long and promised really big sacrifices; example from England.

The second way that has been considered is to get rid of the kulaks and to carry out the collectivization of agriculture. Although there were supporters of both options in the leadership of the Soviet Union, those who advocated collectivization won. Accordingly, the kulaks, which were precisely the competition for the collective farms, had to be eliminated. It was decided to dekulakize the kulaks, as socially alien elements, and transfer their property to the collective farms that are being created.

What was the scale of this dispossession? Of course, many peasants were dispossessed. In total, more than 2 million people have been dispossessed of kulaks - this is almost half a million families. At the same time, dispossession of kulaks went in three categories: the first category is those who resisted the Soviet regime with weapons in their hands, that is, the organizers and participants in uprisings and terrorist acts. The second category is other kulak activists, that is, people who opposed the Soviet regime, fought against it, but passively, that is, without using weapons. And finally, the third category is just fists.

What was the difference between the categories? The fists belonging to the first category were occupied by the "OGPU troikas", that is, some of these kulaks were shot, some of these kulaks were sent to the camps. The second category includes families of kulaks in the first category, and kulaks and their families in the second category. They were deported to remote places in the Soviet Union. The third category - they were also subject to expulsion, but expulsion within the region where they lived. It’s like for example in the Moscow region, to evict from the outskirts of Moscow to the outskirts of the region. All three categories recruited more than 2 million people with family members.

Is it a lot or a little? In fact, statistically, this is about one kulak family per village, that is, one village - one kulak. In some villages, of course, several families of kulaks were evicted, but this only means that in other villages there were no kulaks at all, they were not there.

And now more than 2 million kulaks were evicted. Where were they evicted? There is an opinion that they were evicted to Siberia, thrown almost into the snow, without property, without food, without anything, to certain destruction. In fact, this is also not true. Most of the kulaks, indeed, who were resettled in other regions of the country, they were resettled in Siberia. But they were used as so-called labor settlers - they built new cities. For example, when we are talking about the heroic builders of Magnitka and we are talking about dispossessed people deported to Siberia, we are often talking about the same people. And the best example of this is the family of the first president of the Russian Federation. The fact is that his father was just dispossessed, and his further career developed in Sverdlovsk, as a foreman.

What terrible repressions were used against the kulaks? But here it is quite obvious, since he became a foreman among the workers, then probably the repressions were not very cruel. Loss of rights, too, how to say, given that the son of a kulak later became the First Secretary of the Sverdlovsk Regional Party Committee.

Of course, there were quite numerous distortions during dispossession of kulaks, that is, sometimes there really was a situation when they tried to declare the middle peasants as kulaks. There were moments when envious neighbors managed to slander someone, but such cases were isolated. In fact, the villagers themselves determined who their fists were in their village and who needed to get rid of.

It is clear that justice did not always prevail here, but the decision about who the kulaks were was not taken from above, not by the Soviet government, it was taken by the villagers themselves. It was determined according to the lists provided by the commissars, that is, the inhabitants of this very village, and it was decided who the fist was and what to do with it further. The villagers also determined the category to which the fist would be assigned: a malicious fist or, let's say, simply a world eater.

Moreover, the problem of fists existed in Russian Empire where the rich peasants managed to take over the village. Although the rural community itself partially protected from the growth of kulak land tenure, and kulaks began to emerge mainly after the Stolypin reform, when some became rich, they actually bought up all the land of their fellow villagers, forced their fellow villagers to work for themselves, became large sellers of bread, in fact, they became already the bourgeoisie.

There was another picture, when the same fellow villagers, declaring the kulak a world eater, safely drowned him in a nearby pond, because in fact all the kulak's wealth is based on what he was able to take away from his fellow villagers. The fact is that no matter how well people work in the countryside ... why can't a hardworking middle peasant be allowed to become a fist? His wealth is limited by the size of his land holding. As long as he uses the land that his family received according to the principle of dividing according to the number of eaters, this peasant will not be able to get much wealth, because the yield in the fields is quite limited. It works well, it does not work well, a relatively small field leads to the fact that the peasant remains rather poor. In order for a peasant to become rich, he must take something from other peasants, that is, this is precisely the displacement and landlessness of his fellow villagers.

If we talk about the terrible repressions against the kulaks and their children, then there is a very good resolution of the Council People's Commissars USSR, where it says:

"Children of special settlers and exiles, when they reach the age of sixteen, if they are not defamed by anything, should be issued passports on a general basis and not be prevented from leaving for study or work."

Collectivization turned out to be an alternative way to the gradual enlargement of farms due to pauperization. The peasants in those villages where there were no longer any kulaks were gradually reduced to collective farms (by the way, more often than not, quite voluntarily for themselves) and it turned out that for one village there was a common field, quite extensive, for which the equipment was allocated with the help of which field and processed. In fact, only the kulaks were the victims of collectivization. And the kulaks, no matter how numerous the victims were, accounted for less than 2% of the entire rural population of the Soviet Union. As I said earlier, this is about one family per one rather large village.

The struggle of the Bolsheviks against the kulaks and the formation of Soviet power are shown in x / f Nakhalyonok. USSR.

About the terrible ulcer of the Russian peasantry. The tsarist minister on the kulaks and the kulaks -"The detrimental effect of the development of usury and kulaks in rural life."

Tsarist minister on the kulaks

The text below was published in 1892. Its author, Aleksey Sergeevich Ermolov, is by no means a revolutionary; two years later he will become the Minister of Agriculture and State Property.

The detrimental effect of the development of usury and kulaks in rural life

In close connection with the question of the collection of the state, zemstvo and social taxes that fall on the peasant population and, one might say, mainly on the basis of these penalties, a terrible ulcer has developed in our rural life, in the end it corrupts and takes away the people's welfare - these are the so-called kulaks. and usury. With the urgent need for money that the peasants have - for paying duties, for acquiring after a fire, for buying a horse after it has been stolen, or cattle after a death, these ulcers find the widest field for their development. Given the existing, established with the best goals and, perhaps, quite necessary restrictions on the sale of public and private collection of the basic necessities of the peasant economy, as well as allotment land, there is no correct credit available to the peasants at all.

Only the rural usurer, who provides himself with enormous percentages that reward him for the frequent loss of capital itself, comes to his aid in cases of such dire need, but this help, of course, is dear to the one who once turned to her. Once owing to such a usurer, the peasant can almost never get out of the noose with which he entangles him and which for the most part brings him to complete ruin. Quite often the peasant is already plowing and sowing and gathering grain only for the kulak.

It is known that in the vast majority of cases it turns out to be absolutely impossible for the landowner to get anything from them, according to orders of execution, for unauthorized leaving work, for non-fulfillment of obligations assumed, in the vast majority of cases, - many even consider it unnecessary. go to court in such cases. But the rural usurer, even without a trial, will always get back his own with interest, not in the same way, or in other ways, not in money, so in kind, grain, cattle, land, work, etc.

However, the rural usurers know how to arrange their operations in such a way that the court, at least the former world civil court, which stood on the basis of formal evidence, usually came to the aid of the rural usurer in his predatory activity of ruining the peasantry. It is quite natural that the peasant, unfamiliar with the ritual side of the proceedings, entangled with all sorts of obligations, for the most part incomprehensible to him himself, in court turned out to be powerless to prove his, if not formal, then factual rightness, and the court often ordered a penalty from him, in 5 - 10 times the amount actually owed to them.

Acting with bills of exchange, inadvertently issued to him and armed with writ of execution, which very often the court has no right not to extradite, the rural usurer at the same time corrupts, solders the weak members of wealthy families, entangles them with fictitious debt obligations issued in an amount 10-20 times greater against the actual debt, and ruins the masses of peasants in the fullest sense of the word. It is hard to believe to what extent the interest that is charged from the peasants for the money lent to them reaches and which is mainly dependent on the degree of the people's need. So, in the summer, especially in view of the favorable harvest, the loan is given no more than 45-50% per annum, in the fall the same lenders require at least 120%, and sometimes up to 240%, and very often the collateral is the collateral of peasants shower allotments, which the owners themselves then rent from their own lenders. Sometimes land, selected by the lender for a debt at the rate of 3-4 rubles. for a tithe, it is rented back to its owner for 10-12 rubles.

However, in most cases such percentages are still recognized as insufficient, since, in addition, various works, services, payments in kind, in addition to cash, etc., are pronounced. For loans with bread - for a pood in winter or spring, in the fall two returns. It is very difficult to evaluate all this in terms of money, especially since the accounts of the debtor with his creditor are usually so confused - (for the most part they are deliberately confused by the latter) - that it is almost impossible to understand them.

In recent years, credit secured by property has become especially widespread, and the usurer does not disdain anything - agricultural implements, worn clothes, standing bread, and even a workhorse and cattle are used. When the time of reckoning comes and the peasant has nothing to pay the debt with, then all this turns into sale, and more often is given to the same creditor, and he also sets the price at which the pledged thing is accepted by him in payment of the debt, so that often, having given a pledge, the peasant remains in debt as before, sometimes in an amount not less, against the original debt figure. In places, compulsory work The debtor peasants take on the character of a perfect corvee to the creditor kulak, even much more difficult than the previous master's, because in the past the landowners were interested in preserving the welfare of their peasants, but the present creditor kulak does not care about them.

As a rule, these rural usurers begin their activities with the wine trade, which provides so many convenient ways to make money at the expense of the peasants. Here, of course, also from the side of the law, there are very expedient, in our opinion, restrictions - it is forbidden to sell wine on credit, on the security of bread or things, for future work, it is forbidden to pay with wine for work performed, etc. But it hardly needs to be said that all these beneficial restrictions remain a dead letter, since it is very difficult to keep track of their implementation, and there is no one to follow. Moreover, the court very often exacted money that the peasants owe to the innkeeper - in reality for wine - but on paper, for different, supposedly, purchased goods or products from him.

It is known that for the most part the innkeeper is at the same time a shopkeeper, and a tenant of land, and a pourer of bread, and prasol, i.e. a buyer of livestock and various other peasant goods, since one trade in wine, especially the correct one, without all these, so to speak, its support branches, is far from sufficient to satisfy his aspirations for profit. It is also known that many large fortunes now owe their origin to just such a tavern trade, and some later eminent merchants began by being inmates or so-called carriers in a tavern or tavern. In county towns and large villages, almost all the best houses now belong to wine merchants, or to persons who laid the foundation for their state in the wine trade in connection with the kulaks. For a person who does not stop at any means, not much money is needed to start his activities, but, of course, a certain kind of boldness, dexterity, resourcefulness is needed, especially at first, while the situation is still shaky and the fist has not fledged, has not taken away strength , did not secure the necessary connections. These connections are most easily established and these forces are most strengthened when such a fist finds it possible to take power into its own hands. From this, many of them, especially from among the beginners, in every possible way strive to get into such a place that would give them strength and influence - for example, to get an election to the volost foremen, which sometimes, especially in the past, before the introduction of zemstvo chiefs, - they did it. And once the power fell into the hands, the wings were untied and one could go far, the field ahead opened wide.

It is hardly necessary to dwell on what a corrupting influence the appearance of such a figure in the position of chief brought on rural life and what results could be obtained in this case. For the impossibility of getting into the foremen, you can make peace in another position, even one that is not associated with actual power, such as the position of a church headman, or the so-called ktitor, just to get out of the general level and become a more prominent place from where it is easier to handle all sorts of things. And we must give justice to some of these businessmen - sometimes the elders came out very good, caring, who took care of the church and contributed to its beauty as best they could, not stopping even at rather large donations from their own funds. Perhaps it was partly influenced by the desire to at least forgive a little before the Lord those sins that were involuntarily felt in the soul, and, however, these donations and these prayers sometimes did not stop the further worldly activities of such a guardian in the same direction, but this was usually explained by them, that the enemy of the human race is strong ...

The same rural kulaks are, as said, for the most part local traders, they also buy or borrow from the peasants their bread, tobacco, wool, flax, hemp and other products. The nature of their activities in this regard is also well known. Not to mention those low prices, according to which they accept their works from the peasants, then all the usual methods of such buyers are put into play - measuring, weighing, luring into yards, with incorrect calculations, buying on the road, at the entrance to the city, at a roadside inn, with an appropriate treat etc.

Often, peasants who come to the bazaar with their products are given a price that is significantly lower than the existing one - during the usual strikes between buyers in such cases; - then at reception, - apart from the frequent establishment of a completely arbitrary unit of measure, like a quarter of nine measures, a berkovets of 14 poods or a pood of fifty pounds, - the measurement itself is made by incorrect measures, false weights, etc. It is known that even branded scales are often incorrect. In the cities where the measures are being checked, you can order and submit to the city government for the stamping of special measures for the purchase and special measures for the sale. And since there is an established stigma on the measure or weight, it is almost impossible to prove its infidelity and, of course, not a single peasant would even think about it, only wondering why such a big difference came out when pouring bread, against his own measurement, at home, and often, in the simplicity of the soul, attributes this difference to his own mistake. These methods of deceiving the peasants when buying grain from them are largely supported by the custom of buying grain not by weight, but by measure, which still exists in many parts of Russia. Probably, this custom is preserved by the grain distributors, especially when buying from peasants, because when buying by measure it is much easier to measure the seller so that he will not notice it.

It is known that here great importance have different methods of pouring, - in the same measure, you can put more or less bread, depending on how you pour it, moreover, it is sometimes poured not under the rowing, but with a top, with a mountain, as much as it can hold, and even with By raking, you can press in a certain amount of bread by rowing. The measure, for the most part, for the convenience of dumping, is suspended on a rope and here, using the known kind of tapping techniques, you can make the bread settle down more tightly. Many grain merchants have special clerks for dumping grain from the peasants - real virtuosos in this area. It is remarkable that the methods of activity of rural buyers of grain are extremely varied and very often vary, so as to further confuse and entice the peasant.

So, there are times when buyers buy peasant bread expensive existing prices - more expensive than they buy it from the landlords - more expensive than they themselves sell it later. At the same time, the calculation turns out to be different - sometimes this is done in order to attract a lot of sellers and then, when a lot of peasants eat with bread, at once to drop the price by half; sometimes the goal is to use the method of measuring even more widely, counting on the fact that the peasant, overjoyed by the high price, will follow the acceptance less closely. In a word, different ways a lot, but all of them, of course, to the obvious disadvantage of the peasant and to the greater profit of the plowman, who, having bought peasant grain, then bypasses the landowners' parties, sometimes bluntly declaring that although the landowners have better quality bread, he not handy buy it.

The same methods of measuring and deceiving peasants on a wide scale are practiced in mills, when grinding peasant grain. In addition to the appointment of a completely arbitrary remuneration for grinding, which is usually obtained by nature - grain or flour, the bread that goes into grinding very often is not measured at all, but directly from the mill is put under the millstone, and then the peasant is given flour as much as the owner of the mill pleases, yes and from this amount the grinding fee is deducted.

To eliminate such artificial and almost elusive ways of deceiving the peasants, it would be highly desirable to introduce everywhere the obligatory sale and purchase of grain, as well as its acceptance at the mills, not otherwise than by weight, and, at the same time, prohibit all other arbitrary units of weight. except for those established by law. It would also be useful in that respect, in order to eliminate the currently existing customs, which are different in this respect in different places, which only obscure the matter in the eyes of not only peasants, but even landowners, for whom, due to this, the terminology of different markets is incomprehensible ... It is known that even in St. Petersburg on the stock exchange bread is still sold and quoted either by measure or by weight, which seems extremely inconvenient.

At the same time, it is imperative to streamline the matter of checking weights and measures, taking this matter from the hands of the City Councils, who cannot resolutely cope with this purely technical task requiring attention and accuracy. In councils, as you know, it is usually some watchman, often an illiterate, who will brand anything that is involved in checking and branding weights and measures.

It is known that since the liberation of the peasants and with the weakening and impoverishment of the old noble element, the mass of landlord estates and lands passed into the hands of merchants, burghers and, in general, all sorts of commoners. Far from putting the question on the basis of estate and not rejecting the fact that among these new landowners there are persons who have seriously taken up the economy, who have solid capital and therefore are able to put matters on the most correct basis, one cannot, however, hide from oneself and the fact that such persons are, unfortunately, a relatively rare exception.

In most cases, the buyers or tenants of landlords, or tenants of state land are the same, already more or less got hold of, kulaks - having in mind nothing more than the same goals of speculation or further profit at the expense of, first of all, the natural wealth of the purchased or rented estates, and then at the expense of the surrounding rural population, which at the same time even more quickly and even more faithfully enters into bondage to them. Such a landowner or tenant begins - unless he is bound by an overly strict contract and is watched stubbornly - by destroying a manor house that is being sold for demolition - cutting down a garden and arch of forests, and this method often covers the entire amount paid for the estate and the land goes to the new owner - for nothing.

At the same time, cattle and farm implements are being sold, because the new owner usually either does not intend to run the farm at all, or means to plow and harvest by hiring, at a cheaper price, counting on the forced labor of his former debtors, the peasants. If there is a virgin steppe or a secular deposit in the estate, it is plowed up; the same is done with the land from under the felled forest or garden; if there are ponds, they go down to sow hemp or millet on the spot. But this is just, so to speak, getting down to business, the beginning of work - this is the removal of foam from the acquired estate, which is sometimes so profitable, especially when it comes to a rented estate, that then it can be abandoned, or returned to the owner, allegedly due to the disadvantage of renting , even if only with the payment of the contractual penalty, if the owner was so careful that he entered it into the condition when concluding the contract. But if the land remains with the new owner, if the rental price itself is not high, then for the most part, the distribution of land to the peasants begins by tenths, and prices are, of course, the higher, the more the peasants need the land.

So, the most profitable in this respect are those estates that are located in such an area where most of the peasants sit on a free allotment and where they sometimes have nowhere to drive out a cow or release a chicken, without it getting to someone else's land. Under such conditions, all the ability to "manage" is the ability to exploit the needs and poverty of the surrounding population. It is not for nothing that a cynical proverb has developed between such kulak masters, which well characterizes their view of business and their mode of action. Praising each other the field of their activities and drawing the benefits of the possessions they acquired - “our side is rich,” they say, “therefore, there is a beggar nation all around” ...

Along with the surrender of land to the peasants by the tithes, - of course, with the payment of money "to the sheaf", that is, before the delivery of grain from the fields, and if without the makings, then sometimes with a pledge from the tenant peasants - at least in the form of winter sheepskin coats, which are folded in the barn at the deliverer until autumn - sometimes a literal struggle with neighbors begins because of the damage, from - for peasant cattle, a struggle that sometimes takes on the character of real persecution. Hiring for work, if not all the land is sorted out by the peasants, is made, of course, from the winter, and the payment of the deposit - and sometimes, I must tell the truth - and all the money in advance, is usually adjusted to the time when taxes are collected from the peasants and when, hence it is possible to hire cheaper.

When peasants go to work in the summer, which for the most part are paid separately, from tithing, special, arbitrary measures of tithing are invented, which are sometimes deliberately cut into such bizarre forms, such "Babylonians" that the peasants resolutely cannot realize how much land they have been allotted for work. When peasants are hired to work with pay from tithes, tithes are usually considered to be fortieth, economic; when leasing the same land to the same peasants, a tithe of the state measure is taken, thirty.

In many places, this is already a custom that everyone knows and in which, at least, there is no deception, because the matter is being conducted frankly. But this is what is bad, and what, however, many do not disdain: for measuring the earth, either measuring chains are usually used, or more often fathoms. One chain, or fathom, economic, is ordered longer, so that it captures more land- this is when the land is measured to the peasants for work. Another chain, or fathom, in short, is used when land is allotted to peasants who rented it for plowing and sowing. In both cases, the benefits of the "owner" are thus fully observed, but the peasant, of course, is not aware of it, and if he even guesses that something is not right, then for the most part he will not argue, because "you cannot keep up with every little thing, you know, it's the master's business. "

But it gets worse. It also happens, for example, that during hot working hours, especially when God sends the harvest, and the people are few and the prices for harvesting are growing, one such owner suddenly announces when hiring at a bazaar, where there are a lot of all new people, such an incongruous price high and tempting for the peasants, that the people will tumble down to him. Following this, all others are forced to raise the price of work, so as not to be left completely without workers, despite the fact that the price is sometimes completely impossible in terms of its height. When the time comes for the calculation, the first to raise the price, the owner, who, of course, had the bread removed and delivered before everyone else, asks to wait a little, wait with the calculation, since he has no money now. At first, the workers will make a little noise, and then reluctantly agree. A week passes, then another, - they come for money, but there is still no money, they ask to wait until the bread is sold.

Finally, the bread is sold, but there is still no calculation - and so time goes by until the workers are offered - it's a sin in half, take half the money, and knock off the rest - and the owner would be glad to give everything, but there is no money, times are hard , bread is cheap, there is a hitch in trade. The workers will make some noise here again, and they will remind them of God, but in the end they agree to this too, unless they sometimes bargain with the owner for some additional increase, and with that they leave, until next year, when they again fall for the same bait. The neighbors of such a master-kulak, doing business according to God, hired workers at a price that had been raised to an impossible size as a result of the described trick, and, having paid them as agreed, reduce the economic year to a deficit, because low selling prices for bread really do not pay for the increased prices for work.

Such are the methods and such are the results of the economic activities of the kulaks-landowners or tenants who replaced the former landowners, who are often accused of being impoverished because they failed to apply to the "new conditions of land tenure." On the other hand, where the noble element has survived to a greater extent, where there are fewer estates that have passed into the hands of merchants and kulaks, there is an easier life for the peasant, there is less scope for the predation of usurers, there are correct, humane and normal relations between landowners and peasants, between employers and workers. there is still a firm conviction that the wealth and strength of the country lies in the wealth and strength of the people, and not vice versa. As the ruin and disappearance of the indigenous noble element, the peasant population weakens and depletes, finding neither support nor protection in the motley elements replacing it. This is a fact, confirmed by many researchers of our rural life, even from among those who might be willing to see things in a different light.

This is another dark side our modern rural life, in which, along with the growing poverty of the peasants, the greedy aspirations of the predators described above, most of whom, I must say the truth, came from among the same peasants, but who, as their former fellow villagers say, “ forgot God. " The above facts are enough to show how important it would be to settle this side of the matter, to put an end to the malicious activities of rural usurers, kulaks and buyers, although this task is extremely difficult, especially with the ignorance of the rural population and the complete economic insecurity that is so successful Nowadays, these most dangerous elements of it are used as leeches that suck the last juices of the people's welfare and find for themselves the more expanse and profit, the poorer and more disadvantaged the peasants.

Ermolov A.S. Crop failure and national disaster. SPb., 1892, pp. 179-190

Fist- a folk name, the word was back in the 19th century, is in the dictionaries of the Russian Empire. Means a truly wealthy peasant, but is not defined by wealth.

The history of the kulaks

In the period before collectivization, the land was landlord, peasant, and that which was bought up by the kulaks.

Peasant land Is the land of the community. Usually the peasants did not have enough land, so gradually the hayfields were plowed up for grain.

The peasants ate correspondingly meagerly. According to the calculations of the military department in 1905: 40% of the conscripts, and they almost all came from the village, first tried meat in the army. Undernourished conscripts were fed to military condition.

The peasant land was not privately owned by the peasants, which is why it was constantly divided. The land was a community (peace), from here most often the kulak received the title “ the world eater ", that is, living at the expense of the world.

Those peasants who were engaged in usurious activities were called fists., that is, they gave grain, money at interest, rent a horse for a lot of money, and then all this was "squeezed" back by the methods that gave the name to this subclass of peasants.

The second thing the kulaks did was they used hired labor. They bought part of the land from the ruined landowners, and part, in fact, "squeezed" for debts from the community. If they got insolent and took too much, then the peasants could get ready for the gathering, take a fist and drown in the nearest pond - which has always been called lynching. After that, the gendarmes came to identify the criminals, but as a rule they did not find - the villagers did not betray anyone, and after the gendarmes' county, grace without a fist came to the village.

The kulak himself could not “keep” the village in submission, therefore assistants began to be used ( cam pads) - immigrants from the peasants, who were allowed to part of the "pie" for the fact that they will carry out punitive orders to debtors.

The most important thing in usurious activity is not the availability of funds and the ability to lend them, but the ability to withdraw money, preferably with its own interest.

That is, in fact fist- the head of the village OPG (organized criminal group), podkulachnik - accomplice and fighter of the organization. Podkulachnikov beat someone, rape someone, maim someone and keep the district in fear. At the same time, all Orthodox, go to church and everything is so godlessly organized.

Usually podkulachniki were not the most hardworking peasants, but with an impressive (frightening) appearance.

In part, the process of the emergence of the kulaks in Russia in the middle and at the end of the 19th century was economically justified - in order to mechanize agriculture, to make it more marketable, it was necessary to enlarge rural land plots. The peasantry was land-poor, that is, you can process from morning to evening, sow, but figuratively, even if you crack, you cannot collect a ton of potatoes from 6 acres.

In this regard, no matter how hard the peasant worked, he could not become rich, because you cannot grow much from such a piece of land, you still need to pay taxes to the state - and all that remained was for food. Those who did not work very well could not even pay the ransom payments for the release from serfdom, which were abolished only after the 1905 revolution.

When they say that “ kulaks worked well, and therefore became prosperous“- does not correspond to the truth, for the simple reason that there was not enough land, only for their own food.

Therefore, the kulaks seemed to be economically profitable, because when Stolypin's reform was carried out, the emphasis was on the kulaks. That is, it is necessary to break up the community, to evict the people to settlements, to small farms, so that communal ties are severed, to send part of them as settlers to Siberia, so that the process will take place. pauperization (impoverishment).

In this case, the impoverished peasants either became farm laborers or were forced out into the city (those who were lucky enough not to die of hunger), and those who were wealthy - they will already raise the profitability of agricultural products: buy winnowing machines, seeders in order to grow profit. The stake was on such capitalist development, but the peasantry did not accept it. Most of the peasants sent to settlements beyond the Urals returned back very embittered, because Stolypin was greatly hated in the village.

Next First World War, revolution and Land decree the Bolsheviks. The decree on land solved the problem of partly lack of land for the peasantry, because a quarter of all land at the time of the revolution belonged to landowners. This land was taken from them and divided according to the number of eaters, that is, tied to the community.

Since then, all agricultural land was given to the peasants by the Bolsheviks, as promised by them.

But at the same time, the land was not given to private ownership, but given for use. The land had to be divided according to the number of eaters, it could not be sold or bought. But the peasants did not live better over time, and here's why.

From the time of tsarist regime the kulaks and podkulaks remained and began again usurious activity, and in a short period of time, the land again began to belong to the kulaks, and some of the peasants again became farm laborers. The land began to belong to the kulaks completely illegally, even thanks to the selection for debts.

The exploitation of man by man was prohibited in the Soviet state - the use of farm laborers contradicted this. In addition, usurious activity to private individuals in the USSR in the 1920s was, again, prohibited, but here it is at full speed. Anyway - fists violated every law available to them Soviet Union.

When the question of collectivization arose, the main opponents were precisely the kulaks, because the kulak does not fit into the collective farm at all, he loses everything on the collective farm. The main resistance to collectivization was the kulaks, since the people are rich, they had a serious influence on the minds in their village, and podkulaks helped them in this. They formed public opinion and armed detachments killing police officers, collective farm chairmen, often with their families.

When the question of dispossession of kulaks arose, namely the liberation of the peasants from the kulaks, the government did not take anything from the kulaks and did not enrich itself, as is commonly believed in liberal circles.

Categories of fists

Category 1- counterrevolutionary activists, organizers of terrorist acts and uprisings, the most dangerous enemies of the Soviet regime - armed, killing representatives of collective farms, militiamen, inciting people to revolt against Soviet power.

Category 2- the traditional asset of the rich kulaks and semi-landowners who "crushed" the entire village. This part of the counter-revolutionary activists of the uprising did not suit, did not kill the policemen, but at the same time severely robbed the peasants.

An interesting point. Judging by the films and books, they begin to say: they came to our grandfather, he had only 5 horses and for this he was dispossessed ...

The fact is that 5 horses are not 5 pigs that are needed for food, while a horse is a means of cultivating the land, as well as a vehicle. Not a single peasant will keep an extra horse, it needs to be fed and maintained, and a working peasant does not need more than 1 horse for farming.

The peasant's possession of several horses meant that he uses hired labor... And if he uses it, then he obviously has not only his own land, but also illegal.

Accordingly, the question of dispossession of kulaks arises, and if there are no other indications, then the peasant was assigned to the 3rd category.

What was done with each category of fists

The favorite myth of the liberals: they were hanged, shot and sent to Siberia to certain death!

• 1st category- the kulaks themselves and their families were expelled, but those who were involved in the murder of representatives of the authorities were shot, but the family was not touched. In the first category, the kulaks were subject to expulsion for the Urals, Kazakhstan (as under Stolypin). They were sent with their families.
• 2nd category- the richest kulaks and semi-landowners who did not offer direct resistance to Soviet power - the kulaks themselves were expelled without a family.
• 3rd category- Kulaks with their families were subject to expulsion, but within the boundaries of their county. That is, they were expelled from the village itself to the neighboring one, so that break the bond of the fist with the fists.

How many were evicted

According to the dubious data of the writer of the exclusively artistic word Solzhenitsyn, 15 million men were exiled to distant lands.

In total, according to the OGPU (clear accounting of the costs of resettlement was kept) - in total dispossession was 1 million 800 thousand people(with families). The men themselves - 450-500 thous.

For comparison, settlements in the Soviet Union there were about 500 thousand, that is, it turns out that a little less than 1 family per 1 village was dispossessed, which means that they did not even find kulaks everywhere.

Falsification: there were no situations when the whole village was exiled, since according to the system it turned out that there was 1 fist per village.

Sometimes for especially grave crimes they could additionally punish the podkulachnikov, in such cases 2-3 families could suffer in the village.

There were 120 million peasants at that time, about 1/70 of them were dispossessed.

To the frequent opinion that dispossession was unfair, one can reply that there were those who were unjustly condemned, slandered, and settled scores, but these were very few.

By the way about the Soviet, and then the liberal myth - the famous Pavlik Morozov in the village. Gerasimovka was not the son of a kulak; there were no kulaks at all, there were only exiles.

Dekulakization statistics:

By order of the OGPU, it is noted that according to the head of the OGPU siblag, from the echelon of 10185 migrants from the North Caucasus to Novosibirsk, 341 people (3.3%) died on the way, including a significant number from exhaustion.

Then there was a trial due to a high mortality rate (this is a multiple excess of the norm), the results of which lay on the table of Yagoda (Yezhov's predecessor), in this case those guilty of high mortality were severely punished, up to execution.

Therefore, the myth that a significant part of the kulaks died on the way is not valid.

It should be noted that mainly old people and sick people died, that is, those categories of people who had health problems. They were the ones who perished from exhaustion.

After that, there was a separate order from Yagoda, stating that children under 10 years old should be left to relatives and not transported by those families of kulaks where there were no able-bodied men and elderly people who could not withstand long-term transportation.

In our country, almost the entire population considers themselves to be the descendants of nobles and kulaks, who have endured terrible hardships, but for some reason their family continued.

Falsification: they threw kulaks with their families into the bare steppe. In fact, only kulaks of the 1st category were taken to labor settlements.

There were special decrees saying that the children of kulaks, who are not involved in any crimes themselves, should not be prevented from obtaining a passport upon reaching the age of 16 and leaving the place of settlement to study or work (even among kulaks of the 1st category).

Interesting fact! The famous person from the fists is someone Nikolay Yeltsin! Nikolai Yeltsin was dispossessed and as a punishment he was sent to Sverdlovsk, where he participated in the construction of an enterprise, where he later worked as a foreman. His son Boris Yeltsin became the head of the Sverdlovsk City Committee of the Communist Party, later becoming the President of the Russian Federation. That is, Nikolai Yeltsin worked as a leader despite the fact that he was dispossessed.

Over time, about 200 thousand kulaks fled from the places of forced evictions, many returned to their lands, where no one ever touched them.

The results of dispossession

Of course, there were people to whom dispossession brought pain and grief, but those who received just social benefits from this were dozens of times more, therefore it is not objective to present dispossession in an extremely negative light.

Dekulakization helped build a system of efficient collective farms, helped feed a hungry country and literally provided "food" for the industrialization of the state.

In fact, collectivization made it possible, in contrast to pauperization, which relied on the kulaks, to preserve what the decree on land gave - land to the peasants. If the land belongs to the kulaks, then the overwhelming majority of the peasants will never have it. The collective farms consisted of the same peasants, but the land remained with the collective farms, that is, the collective farms also owned the land on the basis of the rights of use and could not buy and sell land. No one on the land of the collective farm built dachas, did not grow non-agricultural crops.

That is, the land belonged to the peasants, only in the form of collective use under the legislation on the activities of the agricultural cooperative.

At the same time, the version is being actively promoted that collectivization and dispossession of kulaks is when land was taken from the peasants. Draw your own conclusions.

Prepared based on the materials of the historian Boris Yulin and publicist Dmitry Puchkov.