The Reconstruction of Agriculture in the Soviet Union By PROF. A. J. GAYSTER Vice President, Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMISTS Cornell University, Ithaca, New York August, 1930 > pp" PUBLISHED BY THE ‘~“9EMY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES MOSCOW, U. S. S. R. ' AY Qa AN 4 19 a! a Le Pre-revolutionary Russia appeared in the world market primarily as an exporter of agricultural products. This position was not the result of a high level of development of the productive forces of the country, —the necessary prerequisite for the export of a marketable surplus from a producing country. The export of farm products from pre-war Russia was based on the rule of the large land-owner, which compelled the mass of small farmers to turn over to the market, domestic and foreign, the fruits of their labor, even at the expense of satisfyirg their own most elementary needs. Agriculture in pre-revolutionary Russia was characterized by a considerable concentration of farm property in the hands of the wealthy landlords, by the great predominance of small producers among the masses of peasants and, together with this, by the semi-feudal dependence on the landlords existing among the bulk of the peasants. If we divide the land-holdings of pre-revolutionary Russia into four groups according to size of holding, that is, up to 16.6 hectares, from 16.6 to 22 hectares, from 22 to 550, and those above 550 hectares, the relation between the various groups will be shown in the following table, which gives the data for 1905, when the census on which it is based was taken: 4 Number of Holdings Average Holdings, Owners (in million (in dessiatins)* (in millions) dessiatins)* 1. Ruined peasantry, oppressed by semifeudal exploitation 10.5 2. Middle peasantry... 1.0 3, Upper strata, or wealthy peasantry 1. Semi-feudal estates 3 n ne Total oom iam %1 dessiatin equals 1.1 hectares. 13.03 75.0 15.0 70.0 70.0 230.0 7.0 15.0 16.7 2883.0 } 17.6 The great bulk of peasants during this period, the group classified as the ruined peasantry, were oppressed by the exploitation of the wealthy landlords and did not even possess means sufficient for the maintenance of the physical conditions of existence. The chronically miserable conditions prevailing among the mass of poor peasants in Russia is illustrated by the progressively increasing proportion of rejections from military service on account of physical unfitness. For instance, according to official data for 50 provinces of European Russia, the percentage of those rejected or reprieved from military service for physical unfitness showed the following growth: IBTA=T8.corrcecnrmrmrsimmssrsmsmmenmcne L102 PEE CENE 1879-88... rrimmiminsnisssamiemssisi conn 149 « UBBA-8B.....cmmmmmmimmssinimmnnd Bd & 1890-1902... oosrssseesemssssmemsossesmooen 220 1 Thus, the transition of the agriculture of pre-revolutionary Russia from primitive economy to capitalism was a process accompanied by the impoverishment of the great mass of the peasantry, by their pauperiza-1 tion, and by their being forced out of agricultural production to a great degree. IT The contradictions between the desolate condition of the mass of the peasantry, the capitalist development of agriculture, and the domination exercised by the big landlords over the land, the basic means of agricultural production, was the fundamental cause of the 1905 revolution, and was also one of the basic underlying factors in the revolutionary outbreak of 1917. Having crushed the 1905 revolution by means of the punitive expeditions of the czarist troops, by executions and death sentences, the czarist government was at the same time compelled, by means of the so-called “Stolypin laws,” to stimulate the development of agriculture along commercial and capitalistic lines at a heightened tempo. But these attempts could not create sufficiently favorable conditions for the liquidation of the conflict of interests between the landlords and the peasantry, inasmuch as the power and the profits remained in the hands of the ruling, land-owning class. As a matter of fact, the contradictions were actually aggravated by the Stolypin reforms, despite the fact that the czarist government attempted to base itself on certain groups in the villages by affording these groups the possibility of expanding their holdings through the plundering of the common land. In spite of the decisive measures taken in this direction, the outbreak of the revolution, hastened by the war, led to the overthrow of the czarist regime and to the overthrow of the capitalist class, which had attempted to seize the power after the March revolution. ITIL The victory of the November revolution led to the final elimination of landlordism and of land ownership confined principally to the upper strata of the village; at the same time it brought about a considerable parceling out of land among the poor and middle peasantry. This may be seen from the following tables giving the comparative distribution of land in a number of districts before and after the revolution: Groups of Farms Area Per Classified Accord- Farm Area Per ing to Value of Before Farmin Means of Produc- War 1924-25 Change tion Owned + ——— (in dessiatins) — {Steppe Sections) + 34 - 8.0 0.9 11 —10.8 Fe] EE 2 ] © 4 Q Z tn = = [3 I Re] « 3 i. 0-200 rubles .. 2. 201-500 8. 501-800 “ re 4. 801-1400 «“ ..... 5. Above 1400 *“ .. 4.9 7.9 ..8 RX] 11.9 12.8 20.0 18.2 327 176 112 93 63 UKRAINE (Wooded Steppe Sections) nl 2.3 '3 5.0 aU J: i2.1 10.8 18.5 18.4 1. 0-200 rubles .... 2. 201-500 “ se 3. 501-800 “ 4. 801-1400 * 5. Above 1400 “ 209 179 122 ‘ 89 73 TAMBOV PROVINCE 2.0 3.9 7 7.3 1. 0-200 rubles .... 2, 201-500 3, 501-800 “ .. i. 801-1400 “ .. 5. Above 1400 4 0.9 1.6 - 2.0 — 0.8 — 98 2 130 128 129 93 C41 a 1 123 11.5 43.0 17.7 SMOLENSK PROVINCE 12 8.1 5.8 ~ 1.2 18.2 1. 0-200 rubles 2. 201-500 8. 501-800 “ 4. 801-1400 * 5. Above 1400 ¢ +29 1560 LB 135 08 91 — 11 93 —108 63 These tables give a fair indication of the results of the process, brought about by the revolution, of taking land from the upper groups and parceling it out among the lower. For all the lower groups of the peasantry there was, generally speaking, virtually a doubling of the land at their disposal, and sometimes even more. The expansion of land holdings also extended to the middle peasantry, who added to their holdings in almost all sections of the country. Only from the upper groups did the revolution take part of their land, this part increasing in proportion to the size of the holding. A summary of the results of the redistribution of land among the various strata of the rural population in the Ukraine is given in the table below: ~—————Farm Areg—————— After Before Confis- Revo- Per Cent Revolution cated tion Change Change ——(in million dessiatins)—— I. Poor and middle peasant farms... 2. Kulak (rich peasant) farms .... 3. Large land-holdings and church 200 .. 845 414.5 72.5 8.6 68 1.8 -~ 6.8 -—179.0 In comm §. City land ee 5. State and common 180A ee 12.1 12.1 0.6 0.8 0.8 —12.1 —100.0 ~— 0.8 —50.0 4.7 Total oe 41.8 192 41.8 fi 4 Thus, post-revolutionary agriculture is characterized by the elimination of the large landlord economy, by a considerable reduction in the land-holdings of the rich peasantry, and by the rule of the so-called middle peasant, the small producer, in agriculture. ~ IV In the very first year after the revolution the Soviet State was confronted with the question as to the proper path for the development of agriculture. It was quite apparent that the system of agriculture prevailing, with its small-scale production, was not equal to the task of regenerating this most backward branch of national economy and of bringing about a decided improvement in the living conditions of the poorer peasants. At that time Lenin, the head of the Soviet Government and the theoretical and practical leader and guide of the November revolution, wrote of the “necessity of giving all possible support to the transition from small-scale peasant economy to large-scale socialized production.” Lenin continually emphasized the necessity of “organizing the reconstruction of the entire economy, the passing from the single, individual, small-scale, trading economy to socialized large-scale economy.” But such a transition required as a necessary condition the development of an industry which would be able to supply agriculture with the machinery and implements needed for the carrying on of large-scale socialized economy. “This transition,” wrote Lenin, “can be speeded up only by means of such assistance to the peasant as will afford him the possibility of improving in a great degree his entire technique of land cultivation, by reorganizing it from the very bottom.” Without first restoring industry, ruined by the war, blockade and intervention, without considerably advancing the industrialization of the country on the basis of the rehabilitated industry, it would have been impossible to think of a transition from small- to large-8 scale agricultural production, from individual to socialized production. The period of the rehabilitation of industry is thus co-existent with the prevalence of small peasant economy. What was small-scale production able to achieve during this period of its domination in agriculture? First of all, it should be noted that the system of government of the U. S. S. R. created the necessary prerequisites for raising the economic level of the small peasantry, instead of its wholesale ruination. This was demonstrated by the rather rapid restoration of animal and plant husbandry, which had been almost destroyed by the war, blockade and famine. Also the sown area grew from year to year. The rapid restoration of agriculture in the U. S. S. R. took place not only under conditions of a growth in savings and investments in production, but also was accompanied by an improvement in the living conditions of the agricultural producer. According to data of the Statistical Administration, the consumption of butter by the rural population in 1925 was over one-third more than the pre-war consumption in the village. In the following years the consumption of butter showed a continuous gain, as indicated in the following table: Year 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-38 ..iimisimispinimsmisi 1928-20 Annual Per Capita Butter and Fat Consumption in Villages : Per Cent of 1924-25 100.0 108.1 114.0 116.6 189.6 - The decided betterment in the living conditions of the agricultural population brought about a sharp decline in the death rate of the rural population since the revolution. Thus, the death rate in rural districts amounted to 28.6 per 1,000 persons in 1911-13, to 21.7 in 1926, to 21.8 in 1927, and to 18.7 in 1928. Even more clearly is this process of the improvement in the conditions of the great mass of the peasantry illustrated by the decided reduction in the infant mortality rate. During the period 1911-13, in the European part of the empire, the infant mortality rate (for infants up to one year old) was 266 per 1,000; in 1926 the infant mortality rate among the rural population was 174, in 1928—156. The foregoing figures bespeak a considerable betterment in the standards of living of the village masses, resulting in a notable decline in deaths among infants, in increased longevity, and in a corresponding gain in the natural growth of the population. In 1911-13 the annual natural growth in population amounted to 16.9 per 1,000, in 1926 it reached 24 for the village population, and in 1928—26.3. VI Along with the general growth of agricultural production, the great mass of the peasantry, the poor and middle groups, were confronted, in all its magnitude, with the problem of the conditions which would enable them to progress to the higher level of socialized production. The more rapid development of production for sale signified the taking advantage of market conditions by the larger producers primarily. This is clearly brought out by a comparison of the results accomplished by the various groups of peasants: 10 - = ¥ tS 4 4 uv i = & a 28 "B 2. im 2 - S38 32 2% AGL ADT Groups (Classified According to Value of Means of Agricultural Production at Their Disposal fas Bw 5i WINTER WHEAT (Ukraine Steppe) 1. Up to 750.0 rubles a2 i ? 26 2. 750.1-1500.0 rubles.. 55.1 8. Above 1500.0 rubles &K.4 Average for region 52.9 3.1 SPRING WHF *™ ““Tkreire Stepve) 1. Up to 750.0 rubles 2. 750.1-1500.0 rubles 3. Above 1500.0 rubles Average for region 49.2 a8 B.S Difference Between Price and Cost Per Centner (in rubles) 425 +38 +42 1-3.6 11.2 +26 +83 12.6 It will be seen that the larger holdings have a lower production cost per unit and, consequently, more favorable conditions for development and for building ap their resources. The differences in the conditions of production existing between the various groups of small-scale producers created the differentiation of the village, the stratification into separate groups. Parallel with the development of class antagonisms among the different groups of small producers, the period of economic restoration revealed in all clearness the limited means of production which the small peasant producer was able to command. The unprofitable character of small-scale production, its limited field of operations, are indicated by a number of factors relating, on the one hand, to the means of production which the small holding is able to apply and, on the other hand, to the manner of their application. Thus, for instance, the use of more or less complicated machinery is a prerogative enjoyed only by a limited group of farms. In the 11 U. S. S. R. the number of farms possessing their own grain cleaning machines and triers amounted to 11.6 per cent of the total, those owning seeders to only 3.7 per cent, reapers 6.2 per cent, threshers 4.3 per cent. The foregoing data indicate, in the first place, that the great mass of peasants were forced to limit themselves to the most primitive conditions of cultivation, without such elementary necessary means of production as seeders, reapers, grain cleaners, and threshers. On the other hand, a considerable number of peasant farms were compelled to resort to the hiring of means of production, without which they would be unable to avail themselves sufficiently of whatever equipment they had at their disposal. The extent to which this hiring of agricultural equipment was carried may be seen from the following table: Farms Grouped According to Sown Area Up to 2 dessiatins......co.. 2- 4 4- 6 6-9 9-15 15 and over Average Up to 2 dessiating......c 2- 4 “ 4- 6 6-9 9-15 15 and over © AVErage eer Per Cent of Farms Working Land With Hi~~d Working Livestock 192¢ 1025 1926 6a £45 70.1 384. 37.0 20.1 19.3 Ter 11.1 53 2.0 38.0 38 2 36.6 Per Cent of Farms Working Land With Hired Implements 70.7 38.8 22.4 15.6 9.5 8.4 TT 88.8 For those farms which rented out means of production, the income from the renting out of working livestock and agricultural implements reached a substantial figure, as may be seen from their budgets: Per Cent Income From Renting Out Means of Production to Total Estimated Net Income of Farm For Farms With For Farms With Means of Pro- Means of Production Valued duction Valued at 801-1,400 at More Than Rubles 1,400 Rubles i: 5.2 Province TAMDOY coins orem Ukraine (wooded steppe $7 41s) 11) J ——— 5.1 Ukraine (steppe region) 16.5 NOVOSIDITSE oer 74 78 12.2 04 The inherent contradictions and the backwardness »f small-scale production are also illustrated by the great degree of the non-utilization of the available labor power, a large part of which the small-scale producer is not able to apply due to the insufficiency of the means of production: Unused Working Time, in Per Cent of Available Supply Proletarian and Semi- Small-scale Commodproletarian Holdings ity Producers 43.2 40.7 41.1 41.3 61.1 46.3 89.2 39.2 a 41.7 416.5 11.7 REGION Ukraine oso. sen Northern Caucasus ........ Lower Volga mm Betty mmampnosmmmmmns Central Black Soil... Moscow Industrial on. The limitations of small-scale cultivation are also quite clearly reflected in the indicators of the efficiency of production among the various social groups of the village. This may be seen from the following data on the grain yield and the productivity of milch cattle: 18 fat] = Ft Es 3 8 8 g = El in £2 i: % ig, 57 3 $48 ba cS - O =~ g EE on Bf In Percentage of Poor Peasant Level UKRAINE— Yield of winter wheat (in centners per hectare) 8.1 100 10.8 Milk yield (in kilograms per cow) .....1030.7 1074.9 1376.9 104.3 188.6 NORTHERN CAUCASUS— Yield of winter wheat 7.2 8.2 9.6 1189 1833 Milk yield ............ 646.0 768.1 056.2 118.9 148.0 MIDDLE VOLGA REGION— Yield of spring wheat... 12.8 12.9 13.1 100.8 102.3 Milk yield ..............1228.9 1249.4 1364.5 101.7 111.0 Middle Peasant Kulak 138.8 It is clearly evident that while the middle peasant holdings show a lower level of productivity in comparison with the highest group, the poorest group shows an even lower productivity than the middle peasant holdings. In an especially clear-cut fashion may be seen the limitations of petty-peasant production by comparing its productivity and its means of production with that of the collective and state farms. Let us examine a comparison of expenditures per unit of labor as among the different groups of individual peasant holdings and collective and state farms. The expenditures per working day for the various types of farms are given below, in rubles: *The proletariat and semi-proletariat of the wvillege—peasants selling their labor power, to whom this source of income is of primary or secondary importance. Small market growers—independent farmers who do not hire any labor or who hire labor to a very small extent. Petty-capitalist houscholds—farms on which hired labor is used to a comparatively larger extent. 14 Individual Sector Socialized Sector Collective Farms I=] Pod 3 2 £ o £ 4 = 3 2d, 82 Re g 4 ipkdg ox , 2 tips BE 2 OF 3 cES3: $5 £ 8 & LAM am Ml < O -(in rubles)- - 05 06. 07 36 42 112 © 8 Region and Product Central Volga— Spring wheat Siberia— Spring wheat ....... 05 0% Central Black Soil— Winter rye .n 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.8 26 33 Northern Caucasus— Winter wheat ......... 08 0.8 1.1 8.5 8.7 6.6 Thus the limitations of petty production, its unprofitableness, is revealed with sufficient clarity as compared with the great possibilities of large-scale farmng in the form of collective and state farms. VII The process of industrialization of the national .conomy of the U. S. S. R. has considerably increased the demand for agricultural machinery and, consequently, the importation of the more complicated machinery from the countries of Western Europe and America. This has led to the quantity of agricultural machines and tools employed in agriculture mounting steadily from year to year. The value of agricultural machines and tools on all farms amounted to 988 million rubles in 1926-27 and to 1,404 million rubles in 1929-30: The amount required to supply additional machinery for agriculture in 1930-31 is estimated at about one billion rubles. There has simultaneously taken place a considerable development of agricultural cooperation. The spread 15 a0 10% 101-20 % 204-30 % 301° 50 % 501-70 % cawmg 70 % ~ J 7 ~ —. he =. a Per Cent of Total Number of Farms in Collectives in Various Sections of the U. S. 8. R. of different kinds of machine associations and other forms of cooperation in agricultural production for the purpose of the adoption of a new technical basis is of wide extent, especially in connection with the government support rendered such agricultural collectives. The membership of these agricultural cooperatives was: 1924 .... enn 2,869,000 1925 ooo renee 8,589,000 1026 7 818.000 Especially characteristic of the development of cooperation in agricultural production is the considerable growth of the simplest forms of producers’ associations, which increased their membership during the same years from 172,000 to 882,000, i.e., more than five-fold. This growth involved the creation of machine, milk, cattle-raising, horse-breeding and seed-raising associations, and constituted the first preparatory step in the process of collectivization, which has spread so widely during these last years. It is necessary to lay special stress on the enormous role played in the growth of collective agricultural production by that financial and credit aid which the Soviet state has rendered to all forms of cooperation and to the collective farms. The tax payments of the collective farms and cooperative societies have been considerably reduced. Often they have been entirely exempted from the payment of a certain portion of the taxes. In addition, the collective farms receive and have received considerable financial support in the form of cash credits and also of special credits for the purchase of machinery. By decisions of the Soviet Government, the bulk of the expenses involved in land organization within the collective farms was assumed 18 by the state. These tax exemptions and this financial support by the Soviet state have considerably stimulated the development of collectivization. All these factors, together with the greater unity and better organization brought about among the masses of the poor and middle peasantry, have led to a strong and energetic development of the collective farm movement, which has spread widely since 1927. On November 1, 1927, the number of collective farms in the U. 8. S. R. was 14,832, embracing 195,000 peasant holdings. By June 1, 1928, the number of collective farms had mounted to 83,258, comprising 417,000 peasant holdings. By June 1, 1929, the number of collectives had increased to 57,000 with 1,003,-000 peasant holdings. By November 1, 1929, the number of such farms had grown to 67,486 and the number of holdings which had joined the collective farms, to 1,919,000. Finally, in May, 1930, there were in the U. 8. 8. R., 82,276 collectives embracing 5,778,000 holdings. The tempo of collectivization of peasant holdings may also be realized by a comparison of the percentages of peasant holdings in the U. S. S. R. which had joined the collective farms at various dates: June 1, 1927. 0.8 PET CONE October 1, 1929... cms. T6668 MAY Ly 1980. Qt Ct This process is even more clearly evident when the percentages are given for those individual regions where collectivization embraces considerably larger strata of the village. The table which follows shows the percentage of the total number of peasant farms 10 which joined the collectives in three of the chief agricultural regions: Percentage of Peasant Holdings Joining Collective Farms June 1, June 1, June 1, Oct. 1, May 1-15, Region 1927 1928 1929 1929 1930 Northern Caucasus... 1.6 5.2 7.3 10.0 55.2 Lower Volga cw. 1.6 21 5.9 18.3 84.8 Steppe Region of Ukraine ev. 1.6 38 8.6 16.0 45.4 The collective farm movement has made big strides throughout the U. S. S. R., extending from the grain regions of the south and embracing to an ever greater extent the central and northern regions of the country. VIII What has led to such an enormous growth in the collectivization of agriculture in the U. 8. 8S. R.? The answer to this question lies in those advantages of large-scale collective production which were disclosed in the process of collectivization in the first years of the formation of large-scale collective farms. First of all the collectivization of peasant holdings eliminated boundary strips, and, in connection therewith, increased the utilization of the means of production in the largescale farms thus formed. An enormous role in this uniting of the small peasant strips into the large tracts of the collective farms has been played by the nationalization of land in the U. S. S. R. and by the abolition of private ownership in land. This has provided the indispensable basis for combining the many thousands of small scattered strips of land, constituting the peasant holdings which entered into the collective farms, into the large land tracts of the collective farms, organized in conformity with the topographical conditions, with the nature of the soil, and with the best 20 technical methods. Moreover, even wherever there are no tractors as yet on the collective farms (and there is still a considerable shortage of tractors, despite their ever wider distribution throughout the agricultural areas of the U. S. S. R.), the advantages of large-scale production are clearly in evidence. First of all, one must point out the increase in the productivity of agricultural labor as a consequence of the uniting of the small peasant holdings into large collective farms. Thus the number of hectares sown per farm laborer in the collective farms has increased, in comparison with the peasant holdings prior to their entrance into the collective farms (in 1929): in the Ukraine—31.6 per cent; in the Middle Volga Region —78.1 per cent; in the Central Black Soil Region— 23.0 per cent; in the Lower Volga Region—78.0 per cent; in the Northern Caucasus—>50 per cent. At the same time, there has been a considerable increase in the utilization of draft cattle, which in the small peasant holdings had never been fully utilized. Thus, according to budgetary data, the percentage of draft cattle which were not used had been as follows: In the Ukraine—68.6 per cent. In the Northern Caucasus—78 per cent. In the collective farms the draft cattle have been utilized much more productively than was the case in the petty peasant holdings. In the Ukraine the utilization of draft cattle has increased, in comparison with the peasant holdings prior to their collectivization (in 1929), 24.1 per cent; in the Middle Volga Region—380 per cent; in the Central Black Soil Region —17.4 per cent; in the Lower Volga Region—25.2 per cent; in the Northern Caucasus—34.6 per cent. The significant increase in the productive possibilities 21 of the farms which have joined the collective farms is evidenced both in the rate of growth of the collective farms themselves and in a decided improvement in the well-being of the members of the collective farms. The improved living conditions of the members of the collective farms, the increase in their well-being, is based on the increase in productivity of labor of the members of the collective farms. These new rates of growth in the productivity of labor in agriculture have resulted in the current year in new rates of growth in grain production. Prior to last year the annual increase in sown area in the U. S. S. R. was from 4 to 5 per cent, while in the current year, as a result of the increased productivity of labor in the collective and state farms, the increase in the total sown area amounted to 10 per cent, and in the collective farms, to from 80 to 40 per cent. Moreover, the collective and state farms are already manifesting great productivity in the field of animal husbandry. We may thus expect that the development of animal husbandry in the socialized sector of agriculture will in the course of the next few years make up for the present damage which was inflicted on animal husbandry during the past year due to lack of feed and to the resistance to collectivization on the part of the kulaks.* In the collective farms, organized in 1928 and in operation in 1929, the increase in value of all means of production amounted in Uzbekistan to 110 per cent; in Turkmenistan to 109 per cent; in Kirghizia to 133 per cent. Together with the general growth of production in collective farms, there has been taking place a considerable improvement in the living conditions of those joining the collective farms, an improvement in-*In 1930 the number of live stock was reduced as follows: bulls—10 per cent, cows—I12 per cent and hogs—40 per cent. 29 comparably more rapid than in the small holdings. This improvement in the standard of living of the members of the collective farms is evident from a comparison of the annual per capita consumption of various products by different peasant groups: ou > y ed 3] \ LY ih 2 © - PY “+ 23 BEE D8 ~ OO EB [=] [=] s £4 2, 8 2 RA oe 248s Bm = 3 28H cs wy 8 < DL = I rN EEE A, & ro 2 Ep @Q » Sa 9m SAY aad = WD OO mt a WO be aN wy =o a NS m= 298 tO oa Ny OF pt pu] py 3 ea Qe. 0Q 9 ty © =~ 9 > 1 1) Fe ® QD P® [SE N SO b= ~~ vi “8 RFE EJE SES DF AQ! be 10 By DF © 0 © va 3 Soo re N aS © © 3S ® N® NR] S88 — 2 EQ QW RE ©QM Sod oe - 88 F23X& S82 8=2-Z° mma 883 nr Ngo Hog Fon AQ NN 1) Dh; DM = ee nO i — wa SO = MO or rit sm - ON] 3 yoouf 3 2 83 o 4 2.8 2% 8 2 i : 2 2 5 3 3S E gf: g£8¢ 2 g aS B= 2s cst gs P92 13: E94 Bi 28 O88 3 FE ACES 2 I 0 = S&B bo: n, = 2 Cag 2. a <2} 3 Bo & 5k 5 I~ Eg BSE > 3 Tm "J = 3 ° = Ou 3 i wo x 2 0 70 The table here presented bespeaks most eloquently the fact that the food standards of the bulk of the village population which have joined the collective farms, the poor and middle peasantry, have advanced notably in comparison with the period when they were individual landholders, that their standards are already approaching those of the petty capitalist entrepreneurs, which the mass of peasantry could not have attained, of course, if they had remained petty, individual landholders. IX The most important role in large-scale socialist production has been played by the so-called “Sovkhoz,” or Soviet state farm. The development of these state farms has been marked by a gradual and general transition from the most rational assimilation of the most advanced technical forms found abroad to the creation of new models of production, such as are almost entirely unknown in the most advanced countries of today, or are met in isolated instances only. To illustrate this it is sufficient to consider the activity of one of the largest state bodies for the organization of state farms, the Grain Trust. The work of the Grain Trust began in 1928. It had organized 55 farms by 1929, 181 by 1930 and, according to estimates, will have organized 230 by 1931. The total area of arable land in the 181 farms of the Grain Trust amounts to 7,620,000 hectares. The farms are grouped according to size as follows: Per Cent of Total 11 34 50 3 Up to 25,000 hectares CONSEIHULE.....mmmiriiri From 25 £0 40,000... isi Brom 40 10 BO,000...ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmiomsmmm ono: From 80,000 to 100,000... sms: Over 100,000... scorns vor 24 An analysis of the capital structure of a state grain farm, will show that a large mechanized enterprise of this type is in this respect on a level with modern industrial enterprises. The fixed capital of the grain farms amount to 5,-081,500 rubles; working capital, 1,250,000 rubles, of which wages amount to 520,000 rubles. Consequently, the percentage of the constant part of the capital to the total capital is as follows: 5,081.54 1,250.0—520.0 : So emm——wee—i, e., to 91.8 per cent 5,081.54+1,250 This is a proportion that may well be compared with that found in industrial enterprises that are technically more powerful and better equipped, as, for example, the “Red Putilov” (Leningrad) tractor and machine building plant, where it amounts to about 95 per cent. As regards their power base, the grain factories likewise approximate industrial enterprises. The expenditure for fuel per 100 rubles of products in the metal industry amounted to 529.8 calories of “standard fuel equivalents,” in the textile industry to 103.0, in the food industry to 64, and in the state grain farms to 26'7 calories. The state grain farms thus constitute in agriculture a type of industrial grain factory sharply distinct from the old farms of the landowners and approximating modern industrial enterprises, both in regard to the composition of the capital invested and to the level of technical equipment. This is likewise revealed with sufficient clarity by the following table showing the items of expenditure entering into the cost of agricultural production in the 25 state grain farms. They are as follows per 100 rubles of products: Wages occ Beds mummies AMOTtiZation ew. nT PRI cmmmsinisinmmmmmmmm——————————————————— Sundry materials i Rubles 28.40 21.00 18.60 4.96 16.50 9 BA, Thus, a large portion of the cost of production of the state grain farms is made up of items representing industrial products. This causes a state grain farm to stand out as a distinct and new type of economy in comparison with those types which were hitherto the rule in agriculture. The Soviet state has boldly carried over the experience of large-scale industrial production into agriculture. When this question was up for consideration in 1928, the majority of the big specialists in agriculture, having agreed to the exceptional importance of such an approach to the problem of grain-raising, emphasized that at the same time this would be a first experiment and hence its success could not be guaranteed. But the provision of ample resources for this mode of grain-raising proved of decisive importance in securing a solution of the grain problem as a whole, inasmuch as the mass collective farm movement which at this period took the form of small collective farms, was thus afforded a clear demonstration of the advantages of real large-scale farming. The state grain farms in a practical way answered the question as to the possibilities and advantages of large-scale socialist agriculture. 26 Along these two lines, the collectives and the state farms, there will be developed the complete collectivization of the Soviet village. One of the most important developments in the collectivization movement was the creation of machinetractor stations which had their first trial on one of the state farms, Shevchenko, in the Ukraine. This experiment, whose initiator was A. M. Markevich, an agronomist, spread widely and received the support of the Soviet Government. A machine-tractor station, according to the definition of Markevich, is a center for all the mechanical power and the technical equipment necessary for supplying to the fullest extent the production needs of agricultural enterprises. This makes possible an immense economy in technical means of production, their maximum utilization through machine-tractor stations within the limits of a radius of more than 15 to 20 kilometers. Collective farms, which have been organized on territory served by a machine-tractor station, enter into agreements with the latter as to conditions for the cultivation of the fields of the collective farms by the machine-tractor station. The agronomic aid rendered by the machine-tractor stations and the enlisting of members of the collective farms into the working staffs of these stations decidedly transform the aspect of the countryside served by these stations. Machine-tractor stations first of all lead to the growth of the sown area and to the bettering of production. Thus, in the Berezov district on farms served by machine-tractor stations and organized in 1928, the planted area increased as much as 28.4 per cent, while in villages not served by stations the planted area either remained unchanged, or increased on the average about 4.5 per cent. ry a ir y L 8 & - = o" > -) MA o vy vy 4 a 2 5 0 L y - = » 2 = 8 a [2 S83 To8T a — a8 5.2 v3 1 s PB 5 = ; 3 | ui sf CR 32 im 13 1 4 % ; ,e = To = "e a = mw i = - g £ + & > I i [ c = 2S 2 Sh 8 = r=So 9 = ~~ 18; 88% 818 IJ Pied i S83 vo & io i PW rt < KR -o = wom vo] XR a ® 5 a o 5 2 @ " z 1 3 = = So 9 0 - 0 a & . ol =) 3 ® gS SEC) TSO > LQ Seng Pg P| SS cw fo Pola Bo — i © Mm Pox. — lea r 2 8% [ee <x r=[=i] <= 00 MN oF raad Ea oo S < L LY gs E2o. Pod : aq of FP Rae x 10 SS & © ee — an n <2 0 iL] 23 2 = 2 1 = 2 2 oF =] Poa vig AO 2 . -e HY ag 2587 13 ag aa 8 4 $879 + 9? 2d 3.45 TRF a 5 _— © J3eEs TE EET 15882 > Lam 3E~ Ea © qn 8 BH « © © = 3% 07 & = [=] oo LL M2 £3258 . 2 wn A Se Se > o£ gg Lo ba g Ew HEH 8% ggg °2 fo BSH = =m a SSEfil £Eghst - tt 5g FEC > ny $4 $3 MP ok a = a CQ el = «< , 2 a 1 1 © ? { n = 3) ga Rae) i 25 FR EY ou Hy 5 a 88% EE Time 9 OU BL AT aA a — al et 2 = = g < = — NJ B=The income of members of collective farms served by machine-tractor stations has considerably increased, as is evident from the figures presented above, recording the experience of the Shevchenko station. (In the a0 calculations we have taken the net yield and the sales value of the products). = 0 FE 2 5 & ted +E dd 2 oO [=£8: 28, ge & = a SL i <8 < nn ®w i aa QQ WO Pd i oN = 3 = DQ 353288 888 g 8 3 bom ~~ nO S = 5 C8282 EEE EL =» < XH BoD - oy © & 2E 33 rk s 8 =H = = = +e i = Pig. Pod FE Ea] iB Pol id i oe & o 44 © un dg fp o - & = ~ | : 3 2 Fd i co z & 8 | - wo 8 or —_— 2 i e : a & + { ¢ Be Ee hy 3 w E gE 5 = 5 © = Hod en i 5 ¥ i 5 i i EE ; i ad i: joi eS 8 : $0 5 | = ie = Few s 28sec 8a ® TSR LE 288 S85 i J oS — - TRRE FS RB” 2 0 a © a BS) 3 jad 34 a 0 wl 2B i 42 1+ 3. ge y uF ® % 2 - 2 Si * — 3 “ 4 0 \ T These figures, showing the enormous growth in the income of members of a collective farm which has en-29 tered into an agreement with a machine-tractor station, explain the broad extent and development of the machine-tractor stations and their significance in the further reconstruction of agriculture. The machine-tractor stations lead to a decided increase in yield due to better cultivation of the fields and to the agronomic aid rendered the farms. They played a big role in the sowing campaign of the current year, by cultivating an area of 1,999,700 hectares. It is necessary to direct special attention to these indexes which are furnished by machine-tractor stations as regards utilization of tractors. These are shown in the table on the preceding page. The total annual number of working hours per tractor will in 1930 be 2,300 hours. Under the plans for establishing machine-tractor stations their number is expected to increase in 1931 to 551, in 1932 to 796, in 1933 to 798, with a horse-power of 3,987,300. As a result of such a development of the machinetractor stations over a territory which in 1929 comprised 56,700,000 hectares of sown area, it is anticipated that the area under cultivation may be increased 58 per cent by 1933. The reconstruction of agriculture in the Soviet Union is already in full swing. It is sufficient to analyze the data as to the share of the several groups of grain producers before the revolution, in 1927, and in the present year, in order to see the nature of the changes which have taken place in agriculture in the Soviet Union during the period of revolutionary reconstruction. Before the war there fell to the share of the large grain farmers, landowners and kulaks, 84 per cent of the sown area, 40 per cent of the gross yield of grain, and 61 per cent of -the commercial grain crop, exclusive of local village consumption. 20 By 1927 this proportion had sharply changed in favor of the predominance of the small and middle peasant holdings. To the share of the large kulak holdings fell about 6 per cent of the sown area, 8 per cent of the gross production, and 20 per cent of the commercial grain crop. The rest of the agricultural production was in the hands of the small and middle producers, of the poor and middle peasantry. The elimination of the landowners, the decided curtailment of kulak production, the predominance of petty individual holdings in the production of grain— these were the results of the first years of the revolution. This scattered agricultural production the Soviet Government has now definitely turned onto the path of socialist large-scale production, and in 1930 we have in the sector of large-scale socialist grain farms (state and collective farms) about 30 per cent of the sown area, 30 per cent of the gross yield, and 62 per cent of the commercial grain crop, exclusive of local village consumption. At the same time, during the first years of the revolution there took place an uninterrupted growth in the number of peasant holdings. Their number showed an annual increase of 500,000 holdings, 2 to 3 per cent, on the average. The present year is characterized by a definite curtailment of the number of small holdings and by the replacing of 5,778,000 peasant holdings by B2,276 voluntarily organized collective farms. The collectivization of the small and middle peasant holdings has already, in the first stages of its development, shown the enormous advantages of large-scale socialist farming. Small producers who have joined the collective farms have been able already in the first year of the existence of these farms to lay the foundation for large-scale farming; they have been able to 31 derive advantages from this large-scale farming in the form of an increase in the labor productivity of the members of the collective farms, of a better utilization of the means of production which the collective farms had at their disposal, as a result of the collectivization of the means of production formerly belonging to the individual peasant, and as a result of the acquisition of means of production in conformity with modern technical standards. These advantages of large-scale production are evidenced in an increase of yield, a lowering of the cost of production; an increase in profits, and likewise in the higher standard of living of the members of the collective farms. The collective farms have inaugurated a new pace of development in agriculture. Whereas up to recent years the total annual increase in the sown area had not exceeded 4 to 5 per cent, this year, with the state and collective farms as a basis, the sown area in the U. S. S. R. has increased more than 10 per cent. Thus, both from the point of view of the general progress and increased volume of agricultural production and from that of the interests of the small and very small producers themselves, collectivization signifies a change bearing the greatest advantages. 206308800159 & ® 5 £ g = C. FR so § 3 : i A 3 » > a : . : Cy NN LA oy N & sr > Ch N ~ Ie ke ot oO fe) oO [3%] -] N :hnical methods. Moreover, even wherever there are tractors as yet on the collective farms (and there still a considerable shortage of tractors, despite bir ever wider distribution throughout the agricul-1gral areas of the U. S. 8. R.), the advantages of *ge-scale production are clearly in evidence. First of all, one must point out the increase in the , oductivity of agricultural labor as a consequence of ¢ uniting of the small peasant holdings into large lective farms. Thus the number of hectares sown r farm laborer in the collective farms has increased, comparison with the peasant holdings prior to their trance into the collective farms (in 1929): in the iraine—31.6 per cent; in the Middle Volga Region 78.1 per cent; in the Central Black Soil Region— -0 per cent; in the Lower Volga Region—178.0 per at; in the Northern Caucasus—50 per cent. At the same time, there has been a considerable 'rease in the utilization of draft cattle, which in the all peasant holdings had never been fully utilized. 1s, according to budgetary data, the percentage of aft cattle which were not used had been as follows: In the Ukraine—68.6 per cent. In the Northern Caucasus—78 per cent. In the collective farms the draft cattle have been lized much more productively than was the case the petty peasant holdings. In the Ukraine the lization of draft cattle has increased, in compariwith the peasant holdings prior to their collectividon (in 1929), 24.1 per cent; in the Middle Volga g1on—30 per cent; in the Central Black Soil Region 7.4 per cent; in the Lower Volga Region—25.2 per it; in the Northern Caucasus—34.6 per cent, The significant increase in the productive possibilities 21 d