home Treatment and prevention Types of property of the USSR in the field of agriculture, or how a collective farm differs from a state farm. “The state thinks we are extinct”

Types of property of the USSR in the field of agriculture, or how a collective farm differs from a state farm. “The state thinks we are extinct”

Since ancient times, the main economic occupation of Russians has been agriculture. In the 19th century, the main land use system remained three-field - the division of arable land into spring, winter and unsown (fallow) fields. In the north, in the taiga zone, the slash-and-burn farming system was preserved in some places. On larger territory In Russia, the land was plowed with a wooden plow with one or two metal coulters, in central regions- roe deer, in the south - with a plow. A harrow was used to loosen the plowed soil and after sowing. They sowed rye, barley, wheat, oats, and buckwheat. The peasant scattered grain in handfuls from a wooden or wicker seeder hanging from his neck. The beginning of each stage of field work was accompanied by a ritual beginning, accompanied by prayer.

Working on the land, which required great physical effort and experience, was considered a man's responsibility. A woman could take part in harrowing, less often in plowing, but she was not trusted in sowing. The people said: “It was ordained by God Himself that a man should sow”; “It’s a sin for a woman to sow.” This rule was often violated in areas where latrine industries were widespread, where there were not enough male workers for field work, for example, in the Kostroma and Yaroslavl provinces. This ban was also associated with a complex of ideas about sowing as a symbolic fertilization of the earth. The semantics of conception can be traced in the attributes of the ritual beginning of sowing - “seeding”, during which they buried in the ground or scattered it across the field Easter eggs- a symbol of the beginning of a new life. An indirect confirmation of this connection was the fact that boys began to be taught to sow at the end of their home labor training at the age of 17-18, when they were recognized as adults and fit for marriage.

In contrast to the beginning of field work, its completion - the harvest - the symbolic birth of the earth - was considered a woman's responsibility. When harvesting grain, women used sickles. From the second half of the 19th century century, when harvesting oats or buckwheat, they began to use a Lithuanian scythe, but this was already a man’s responsibility. Girls were taught to use a sickle from the age of 10-12, and often a smaller sickle was ordered especially for them. The women worked in pairs - the first cut the ears of corn, the second (a teenage boy could play this role) knitted the sheaves. If there were several women in the family, they lined up in a row according to seniority, a step from one another, the eldest set the pace, the rest tried to keep up. The harvest was the most difficult time for a woman (hence its name - strada), it was accompanied by harvest songs, drawn-out and melancholy, often telling about the unfortunate female lot, while only married women. At the end of the harvest, to replenish the expended strength, the women rolled around the field with a sentence known in many variants, for example with this: “Nivka, Nivka, give back my strength.” The last or sometimes the first sheaf enjoyed special honor and was endowed magical properties. It was solemnly taken to the village, decorated and installed under icons until the Intercession, when some of the grains from the sheaf were “fed” to the cattle for their safe wintering, and the rest was mixed with selected grain intended for sowing next year. On the last strip it was customary to leave a small bunch of ears of corn, in which, according to peasant beliefs, the fruit-bearing power of the earth was concentrated; it was called “Spassova / Nikolina / Ilya’s beard.” These ears of corn were tied with a smart towel, and an offering was placed in the center - a loaf of bread, sometimes a glass of vodka was also placed.

The tied sheaves were placed on the field in rumps or suslons on the field for initial drying, then the owner transported them to a barn or barn for drying by “fire.” Dried grain was threshed on a threshing floor with flails ("threshing machines"), and denser ears were threshed with "kichiga". Threshing was considered a man's job, although women could also participate in it. The threshed grain was freed from the straw with a rake, winnowed, tossed on a shovel, and then raked and scooped into bottoms - wooden chests or wicker tubs that were stored in barns. As necessary, grain was ground in a water or windmill. Homemade hand millstones or mortars were used to obtain cereals and wholemeal flour.

The following scene shows various moments of manual processing of flax: breaking the hard kerf on a wooden crusher, scuffing - the first cleaning of the fiber from the destroyed kerf, and the final cleaning of the tow with a wire brush or comb.

Cattle breeding in a Russian village

The peasants kept horses, cows, sheep, and less often pigs, as well as poultry - chickens, ducks, geese. Cattle breeding was of an auxiliary nature and, in addition to meat, milk and wool, provided the economy with draft power and fertilizer - manure, without which in the non-black soil zone the land refused to produce good harvests. From this, cows in some places received the name “dung beetles.” The cattle were mongrel, often exhausted during the winter. From Yegor to Pokrov, he grazed on common pastures under the supervision of a shepherd or grazed freely in fenced forest clearings. From the Intercession, the cattle were placed in a barn, in a stall.

Forage was collected in hayfields, divided into strips among all householders. The grass was mowed with a Lithuanian scythe; in the north they used more old version pink salmon scythes, with a short curved handle and a heavier blade. The hay was dried by loosening it with a rake and thrown into stacks with a two-pronged wooden fork, sometimes reaching three meters in length. Hay was stored in a hayloft in a courtyard attached to the house or in a special hay barn. During the period of spring starvation in non-chernozem regions, cows were fed rye straw from the roof, crushed and sprinkled with salt. The horses that had to plow in the spring received the best food; they were supplemented with oats. In a strong farm in central Russia there could be two horses, two or three cows, a calf, a couple of piglets, five or six sheep, chickens were usually not counted. In Siberia, and especially in Altai, where dairy farming was especially developed, up to a dozen cows could be kept on a rich farm.

The population also engaged in trades such as hunting and fishing. In the north, these activities became widespread. Fishing was widespread in Russia, due to the abundance of rivers, lakes and seas in this country. For residents of coastal areas, fishing was the main industry that provided a means of subsistence. The fishing grounds were owned by the peasant community, the state or a private owner, so fishermen's artels rented it and sold the fish. They set fish traps and caught with nets. In the hall there is a flat-bottomed boat, with full equipment for “raying” fish, hollowed out from a single tree trunk. This is one of the archaic methods of fishing in shallow waters in the dark at night. The fisherman illuminated the water surface of the river with a lit tow tied to a metal “archer” and beat with a wooden spear with a metal tip the large fish attracted by the torch and illuminated.

In the forest areas of the North, the Urals, and Siberia, hunting was the main occupation of the peasant population. The main game animals were squirrels, foxes, sables, and wolverines. Bird hunting was widespread: wood grouse, hazel grouse, partridges, etc. Hunting was always carried out in certain places belonging to families and communities. Each hunter had the right to set up a fishing hut, from which hunting paths, “putins,” branched off. They hunted with guns, made traps, used crossbows, and spears. Each hunter had a dog specially trained to hunt a particular animal.

From the second half of the 19th century, handicrafts and latrine trades became a significant help in the economy of the peasants of the non-chernozem zone of Russia. All necessary household equipment (plows, roes, sickles, scythes, rakes), significant amount types of utensils (cooperage, turning, ceramic) and vehicles (carts, sleighs, boats) were made for sale by peasants - artisans. The craft was passed on from generation to generation, all family members were involved in production, and their responsibilities were determined according to their age. Individual artisans often united in artels or had a contractor who supplied raw materials and took them finished products. The work of a handicraftsman did not require absence from the village and was combined with traditional farming, in contrast to waste crafts.

In the center of the hall we see a model of the fair. Where they sold food, as well as handicrafts, which we will talk about in the next room.

In the distant years of perestroika, the press harped on the question: who is capable of feeding the people? At the turn of the 80s and 90s, it was announced that collective farms and state farms were “AgroGULAG”, and it must be immediately destroyed. And distribute the land to former collective and state farmers as free cultivators, and they will begin to prosper, filling the shelves with cheap and high-quality products.

"AgroGULAG" and the free tiller

The destruction of state and collective farms was an ideological demarche, not an economic one. Not very advanced, but still modern Soviet agriculture collapsed when transferred to capitalist rails. When our family 12 years ago acquired two former state farms in the Salsk steppe, tormented by the “effective owner,” I understood what devastation was in the literal, physical sense of the word.

In the quarter century that has passed since the dissolution of AgroGULAG, the agricultural sector has largely recovered. But the growth of agricultural production, which it is now fashionable to be proud of, is a restorative growth. Even in terms of grain, we have not yet exceeded the figures of the RSFSR. In 2015, 104.3 million tons were collected, and in 1971 – 107.4. By sugar beets We are at the level of 1989, for meat - 1987, for milk - even 1957, for eggs - 1982. I'm not even talking about wool production - here we are at the level of 1922 (data from the Moscow Economic Forum - 2016).

So, we must finally give ourselves an account of what type Agriculture the state to place a bet. Which ones are there today? Here they are: 1) farmers; 2) former collective and state farms, now owned by private owners; 3) agricultural holdings, i.e. large capitalist farms.

Outgoing nature

Since perestroika times, it has been customary to extol farmers. In my opinion, farms have no prospects, they are outdated even before birth. It is no coincidence that almost all children of farmers do not want to continue the work of their parents (the same happens in rich European countries).

In our area, farmers have approximately 200 to 1000 hectares. There is no particular prosperity, although they earn something. At the same time, it has been noticed that livestock farmers shamelessly steal feed from large farms. As they once did on the state farm, so it is today; A lot of money is spent on security.

Sometimes farmers do not bother with any registration at all - they formally run private farms and raise livestock. But how? They have no land - but “everything around is collective farm, everything around is mine.” Damage and outright theft are commonplace. Letting the herd go to someone else's winter is a piece of cake.

It’s time to admit the obvious: the cow-lamps that touch intellectuals, nurtured by a zealous master’s hand, this entire idyll is based on stolen food. If there weren’t an unwitting “donor” nearby (then feed would have to be bought on the market), there would be no domestic animal husbandry.

This is where, by the way, the government came up with the idea last September to limit the number of livestock on a personal farmstead, which caused such a storm of indignation that it was never mentioned again. But in essence, it was only about bringing business out of the shadows.

In general, family farms all over the world are becoming a thing of the past: the lands of small farmers are being bought up by large farms. Driving through the most prosperous region of Italy - the Veneto, among perfectly manicured fields here and there you see picturesque brick ruins entwined with ivy, as if in paintings from the Romantic era. These are former farmhouses abandoned by their owners. Farmers go bankrupt or go out of business and sell their land to large owners. It’s a pity, but this is the logic of competition, technology, the logic of capitalism, if you like.

An unpleasant feature of our farmers is that they do not participate in the local “social system” and infrastructure: it is easier and more convenient for the district administration to deal with the “large farmers”. And our life still glimmers around production cells - factories, state farms. It was they who previously patronized schools, repaired roads, and did whatever they did...

A farmer cannot create and maintain the life of a village; he does not have the strength to do so. This means that life with farmers will be wild, and the farmer’s children will not live in this wildness, and no longer do.

Former

Today, former collective and state farms belong to private owners. Some are quite prosperous, while others are barely getting by. No special progress, no increase in productivity compared to Soviet times No. However, in our Salsk region, it is they who form the basis of the economy, pay taxes, and support the entire sometimes wretched “social system” on their shoulders. Who else will do this?

But it is difficult to expect breakthroughs and innovations from them: the burden of all sorts of different habits is heavy. For example, it is difficult to fire unnecessary or even harmful workers: everyone is tied by friendly, family ties, everyone covers for everyone... In general, the resource of the economy is dispersed, partially taken away. Managers at all levels, with rare exceptions, receive kickbacks from suppliers, and this is the most important source of their income. As a result, it happens like this: sometimes a lot of people feed around the farm, but the lack of profit is shown. Sometimes it is truly absent - at least, it does not reach the owners.

In a sense, this is not even bad: people need somewhere to feed! But with this model there is no tangible progress - only maintaining a tolerable level. There is a defeatist word “survive”: they often survive. It’s also bad that in this situation there is not enough investment in the villages: the investor, after all, looks at the profitability of the farm. And if profitability is not shown, he will not invest.

When people ask us what the main difficulties are, we answer: personnel. Not even cheap loans, not state support, but personnel. Both managers and specialists. However, this is a problem for everyone Russian life. Finding a good agronomist, especially a farm director, is a rare success. The scary thing is this: the old generation of agricultural specialists is leaving, and the replacement... Hmmm, a rather thin replacement.

The state is obliged, finally, by closing 9/10 of all financial and cultural universities, to literally push young people into the real sector. We must show that agriculture is profitable, interesting, ambitious, fashionable...

Extra people

The most advanced farms in the technical and economic sense are agricultural holdings. They have better technology, they use more advanced methods of work. Typically, agricultural holdings have alien owners: banks, just rich people. They are able to make a large investment at once. This doesn't seem to be a bad idea.

But I would not consider them a solution to the problem. First of all, because they saw the earth in the coffin and everything connected with it. They are interested in profit. Therefore, the soil is sometimes plowed down to cosmic dust. This, for example, happens when sunflowers are constantly sown or crop rotation is not observed at all. You say that in wise Europe crop rotations are not given such importance? This is partly true, but they apply tens of times more fertilizer there.

But that's not all. Agricultural holdings do not need the rural population. Sometimes they only need a few dozen people. The rest quit. In response, villagers sometimes burn advanced imported equipment...

Maintaining the lives of all village residents is not in the interests of agricultural holdings. Not because they are evil, but simply because they are capitalists. Technology today is productive, so villagers are often superfluous. This is irremovable back side progressive and innovative technologies. At the same time, one should not think that agricultural holdings are well managed: they are terribly bureaucratic, like many other large entities.

Who will say the almighty word “forward”?

You can often hear that farmers’ cooperatives – that is, essentially collective farms – would be great. But it is very difficult for us to unite from below. The general suspicion and habit of cheating get in the way. Our people are still poorly able to organize themselves. And in the south of Russia, in the most productive places, the psychology is completely kulak.

The solution to the problem of agriculture, it seems to me, lies entirely outside of it; at least outside the farms. Organizing centers should be large processors of agricultural products, giving tasks to agricultural producers - no matter what size or form of ownership. Once upon a time, I remember, progressives lamented that the district committee was sending instructions to the collective farm on what and when to sow. We need to stop bossing the guy around: he knows everything himself.

Oh, if only someone could command us! And then he took the harvest at fixed prices. Farmers should not worry about sales and, ideally, should not figure out what to plant - they already have enough worries. A large processor must announce, say, at the beginning of the year that it buys such and such products at such and such a price. It would be nice if he provided seeds and agronomic support, and then took back what was produced. Product processing should be carried out by truly large operators who are able to speak on an equal footing with supermarket chains. Neither farmers nor larger farms can do this: the networks simply crush them. And this is natural: in economics, operators of similar size communicate on equal terms.

The US agro-industrial complex, the most advanced in the world, is structured according to this scheme. There, farmers are practically outsourced employees of corporations, and not at all those who produce what they want and sell where they know.

In the fall of 2014, suddenly arose high level there is talk of creating “logistics centers” where manufacturers will bring the fruits of their labor. Then all this came to naught, but I have a guess that the original thought was precisely this - about creating large processors that would organize the entire process. This is urgent, and it cannot be done without smart government intervention.

The basis of the economic life of the majority of the Russian population, until the 30s of the twentieth century, was agriculture, namely arable grain farming. Depending on natural and socio-economic conditions, the Russian farming culture had its own characteristics. The most common was the steam grain system, which became dominant among the Russians in early time. The main crop was rye; wheat took a significant place in the economy only with the development of the southeastern and southern ends of the East European Plain in the 18th-19th centuries.

The introduction of steam testified to great achievements in the development of the productive forces of society. This system was most adapted to life in a subsistence economy and answered climatic conditions central zone of the European part of Russia. In the 19th century Three-field crop rotation spread, that is, the alternation of winter, spring crops and fallows, although in some places there was also a two-field system, when fallow was used in only two fields.

On the outskirts of an ever-expanding Russian state More primitive and extensive farming systems were temporarily revived: fallow (in steppe regions and vast riverine meadows) and slash-and-burn system (in forest regions). Under these systems, a plowed area was exploited for several years and then abandoned and "rested" as pasture or small woodland until it was plowed again after several years, and sometimes decades.

The transition from three-field to more intensive systems was carried out through the introduction of new crops, including those that improved the soil structure, the transition to occupied fallows, as well as through increased fertilization of fields with manure, peat, silt, and sometimes artificial fertilizers.

The main direction of agriculture was the cultivation of grain crops. According to a long tradition, rye was considered the main grain plant among Russians. Rye has long been sown almost everywhere. Usually under rye in northern and middle lane Russia had half of the sown areas, and in the central black earth provinces - even more. In the most southern regions, in the Don steppes, in the lower reaches of the Volga, in the North Caucasus, wheat was grown for sale.

In the 19th century wheat in peasant farming was as widespread as rye, but the map of sown areas was somewhat different. The importance of wheat decreased from south to north. Most of the wheat was collected in the Urals, in the Kuban. In the central black earth provinces it was grown along with rye, but in the non-black earth center and to the north it was almost not cultivated. They successfully cultivated wheat in the steppe regions of Siberia.

Collective farm, collective farm, is a form of rural management in the USSR, in which the means of production (land, equipment, livestock, seeds, etc.) were under the public management of its participants and the results of labor were also distributed in common... ... Wikipedia

Collective farms- (collective x va), one of the types of agricultural enterprises, a cross form of association. for joint management of large companies. agricultural production The economic basis of Kazakhstan was made up of societies. ownership of the means of production. and the collective work of its members. The first... Ural Historical Encyclopedia

Collective farms- collective farms, in the USSR, cooperative organizations of voluntarily united peasants for the joint conduct of large-scale socialist agricultural production on the basis of social means of production and collective...

Collective farms- a cooperative form of organization of peasant labor, based on a special collective farm cooperative form of ownership of the main means of production, state ownership of land and strict regulation of the production process.… … Brief dictionary historical and legal terms

Collective farms- COLLECTIVE FARMS. In 1940, the USSR had 236.9 thousand K. The war caused great damage to K. K con. 1941 their number decreased to 149.7 thousand. Material and technical equipment weakened. base K. (See Art. Machine and tractor stations). At the harvest of 1941 in K. rear districts... ... Great Patriotic War 1941-1945: encyclopedia

Collective farms- collective farms (agricultural communes, artels) ... Popular Political Dictionary

COLLECTIVIZATION OF AGRICULTURE IN THE USSR- the process of production cooperation of small individual crosses. x century, the main link of the socialist. transformation of the village carried out during the transition period from capitalism to socialism (1917 mid-30s). Necessity K.,... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Kistendeysky district- Country... Wikipedia

Kalacheevsky district, Voronezh region- Kalacheevsky district Coat of arms Country ... Wikipedia

Collectivization of agriculture- in the USSR, the transformation of small, individual peasant farms into large public socialist farms through cooperation. In the transition period from capitalism to socialism, the most important link in socialist reconstruction... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Kolkhoz- This term has other meanings, see Collective Farm (meanings). Collective farm (from collective farm) is a form of rural management in the USSR, in which the means of production (land, equipment, livestock, seeds, etc.) were... ... Wikipedia

Books

Border troops of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War. 1942-1945 , . The documents published in the collection reveal the triumph of the principles of internationalism and fraternal unity of peoples Soviet Union. Essentially, each document talks about how hand in hand... Buy for 1,200 rubles
Soviet political poster. Golden Collection , . The Soviet political poster of the 20th century is a significant phenomenon in modern world culture. Greatest heights it reached in the period 1918-1970: from the first anniversary of October 1917 to...

Have you ever thought about how life would change if all people suddenly became the same? Usually attempts to bring all nations to a common denominator do not lead to anything good. So the enterprise conceived by the leadership of the USSR to transform the gypsies into exemplary collective farmers ultimately ended in failure. At the same time, the fates of many people were crippled. Why from the representatives ancient people did the Soviet cultivators and livestock breeders fail?

The revolution deprived of income

The famous historian Nikolai Bessonov in his work “Gypsies in Russia: Forced Settlement” wrote that, contrary to Bolshevik propaganda, all ethnic groups of nomads negatively perceived the workers’ and peasants’ revolution. The communists did not find a common language with the gypsies, although they did not consider them class enemies.

In general, the idea of universal equality does not correlate well with the mentality of these people, who believe that being rich and having a lot of gold is definitely good. After the revolution, the property of many wealthy gypsies was nationalized, and singers and musicians lost their clientele in the form of nobles and merchants. The impoverished population of the country bought almost nothing from tinkers and blacksmiths, as well as from other craftsmen. And fortune telling for the betrothed began to interest girls much less than food cards.

According to the All-Union Population Census of 1926, there were 61 thousand Roma in the country. Although most experts believe that not all representatives of this people caught the eye of the statistical service staff. And many called themselves Greeks, Romanians, Moldovans, Hungarians, etc. These people have long distrusted the authorities, fearing persecution. Therefore, determine exact amount Gypsies living in a particular region are quite difficult.

Trying to change the people

A gypsy camp cannot always be in one place. The traditional way of life of this people is based on regular moving from city to city, trade and other crafts.

The USSR authorities made the first attempt to turn nomads into settled residents in 1926, when the Union government issued a decree “On measures to facilitate the transition of nomadic gypsies to a settled way of life.” And two years later, a decree “On the allocation of land to gypsies transitioning to a working sedentary lifestyle” was issued.

Doctor of Historical Sciences Nadezhda Demeter believes that the Soviet government initially did not plan to somehow oppress representatives of the nomadic people. The party bosses believed that it was enough to give the gypsies the opportunity to settle on the earth, and they would change on their own. Moreover, there are no repressive measures against those who did not want to become collective farmers and workers of labor artels mentioned above regulations the Soviet government was not expected.

52 gypsy collective farms

In the late 20s - the first half of the 30s of the twentieth century, 52 Roma collective farms were created throughout the USSR. Each family that wished to have a permanent place of residence was allocated land plots and from 500 to 1000 rubles of subsidies for establishing subsidiary farming. Then many took the money, but continued to lead a nomadic lifestyle. And only no more than 5% of gypsies actually became collective farmers.

For example, on the lands of the Talitsky village council of the Lipetsk region, the agricultural artel “Lola Chergen” (“Red Star”) was organized, which included about 50 workers. However, according to the recollections of local residents, the gypsies themselves did not work in the fields. To do this, they hired residents of surrounding villages. Collective farmers did not hand over the harvest to the state, but divided it equally among everyone. The senior party leadership turned a blind eye to this.

According to many experts, main mistake The Soviet nomenklatura was that the peculiarities of the mentality of the Roma and their penchant for certain traditional crafts were not taken into account. These people were not at all against work. They knew how to work: raise horses, forge gardening tools, tin and solder, engage in other crafts, and also trade. It was simply necessary to use the gypsy potential correctly, to direct their energy in the right direction.

In some regions, local authorities took the order from above to collectivize representatives of this people literally. People were forcibly enrolled in collective farms and their horses were taken away. However, Gypsy collective farms existed only until the Great Patriotic War. After it, the Soviet government recognized this experiment as a failure.

Repression for the unreliable

Like many peoples of the USSR, the Roma also suffered from repression in the 30s of the 20th century. And although they were not formally punished for their way of life, the accusations were often related to the traditions of this people.

Thus, Leningrad tinkers were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment with confiscation of all property. They were convicted of illegal trade foreign currency. The fact is that the convicts belonged to the Kelderara ethnic group, whose representatives turn all their income into gold. From generation to generation, tinker families accumulated coins different countries from precious metal. Women of this ethnic group traditionally wear jewelry made from such coins to highlight their wealth.

Some Roma are still confident that most of the criminal cases against them were fabricated for one purpose - to confiscate gold.

According to historian Nikolai Bessonov, from June 23 to July 3, 1932, the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs organized raids on everyone law enforcement agencies considered unreliable citizens. Big cities– Moscow, Leningrad, Minsk, Odessa, Kharkov, Kyiv – “cleared” of gypsies. About 5.5 thousand people were exiled to Siberia and the northern Urals. Raids also took place in all regions of Central Russia, Moldova, Crimea, and Ukraine.

This is what they did with those who did not want to become collective farmers. Of course, not all the Roma were arrested; most managed to avoid repression, but this is another reason why representatives of the ancient people do not trust the authorities.

Settled life or exile

The USSR government returned to solving the Gypsy issue in 1956, when it adopted a resolution “On the introduction to work of Gypsies engaged in vagrancy.”

As Nadezhda Demeter, Doctor of Historical Sciences, notes, it was this document that really forced all Soviet gypsies to switch to a settled life. Because, unlike previous resolutions, it clearly spelled out punitive sanctions: up to five years of exile for refusing to follow government instructions. And although wandering gypsies could be found for a long time, they no longer led their original nomadic lifestyle. All these people now have passports and registration.

However, in the 50s of the twentieth century, the economic prerequisites for many traditional types of income for gypsies disappeared. Handicraft products were not in demand due to the development industrial production, horses were replaced by cars and tractors, and there was no longer a shortage of certain goods. Handicrafts, horse breeding and trade ceased to bring in their former income.

Of course, not all local authorities were happy with the gypsies who wished to settle in their patrimony. Many officials did not want to allocate land, register and employ these people, since they were convinced that the Roma would not work anyway. But the country's leadership insisted on its own.

On January 11, 1958, the Minister of Internal Affairs of the USSR Nikolai Dudorov sent a secret note to the government and the Central Committee of the CPSU, in which he reported on the results of the work done. During 1957, the police registered almost 71 thousand Roma, most of them were registered and employed. And 305 people were sent into exile for refusing to voluntarily transition to a settled life.