te do with collectivism. There is a current term ,,pseudo-kolkhos” which 
denotes a private enterprise avowedly disguised as “kolkhos” for the sake 
of convenience. According to the official data (which it would be natural 
to suspect rather of under-estimating the real position), the percentage of 
“pseudo-kolkhoses’” by provinces is as follows: province of Tver — 48 
per cent., Tartar Republic — 68 per cent., Provinces of Saratov, Tula and 
Moscow, as well as Siberia and the Ukraine — 30 per cent., province of 
Tambov — 15 per cent., province of Voronej — 53 per cent. As regards 
the statute of kolkhoses in general, it is often, says Kindeiev, only a 
signboard. Yet, 10 per cent. of the kolkhoses have not even such a 
signboard, existing without any statute, and inasmuch as there is a statute, 
it is in 50 cases out of 100 not adhered to. A considerable number of the 
kolkhoses are “non-organised’’; towards the end of 1925 they constituted 
over one half of the total number. This is important because as a rule, 
“non-organised’”’ kolkhoses hold the land in individual tenure. In so far 
as the kolkhoses are real collective farms, they have the following charac- 
teristic drawbacks: bad discipline of labour, lack of personal interest, and 
great “mobility of composing elements’. The following fact is often to be 
observed in the kolkhoses. In the autumn a new member is idmitted into 
the kolkhos; having fed himself throughout the winter, he goes away in 
the spring, and finds other work’. Conditions of life in the communes are 
not very encouraging: “an average communard feels that he is in the 
position of a hired labourer” — he is scared and terrorised. What are 
the reasons of the formation of kolkhoses? Apart from those which are 
generally known, viz., the desire to increase one’s holding and to obtain all 
sorts of privileges, Kindeiev points out another reason apt to surprise even 
one who is accustomed to the surprises the Soviet reality is so full of. 
The formation of “kolkhoses”, as it appears, represents a widely spread 
means of leaving the village community for independent settlements outside 
of the communal rule, viz. the “khootors”. People form a kolkhos 
with the special aim of freeing themselves from the fetters of the village 
community, and immediately afterwards they divide their collective farm 
into separate holdings. The most convenient form of kolkhos in this respect 
appears to be the society with collective ploughing of land for according 
to the statute of such societies the holding of each member may be separated 
at any given moment on his demand, which is not the case with the 
communes and artels. And most curiously, comrade Kindeiev recommends 
the finding of a “correct solution” of the question of providing land for 
the retiring members of communes and artels as an efficient measure 
destined to contribute to the further rise and growth of collective forms 
of farming. In his opinion, this will give to the peasants a new incentive 
to the formation of collective farms: it is merely necessary to grant to 
ge