Discussions about agricultural land have again raised the question of who can be an effective owner. In the bustle of debate, they also remembered Soviet methods of management in agriculture. And as often happens in the heat of an argument, everyone got confused, so it’s worth reminding some and telling others.

Due to numerous requests from readers, the editors of the document continue to publish on the topic of agriculture in the USSR.

History exam puzzle

Teachers of the history of the CPSU loved to ask careless students a follow-up question: “When did state farms appear?” Many students recalled the film “Virgin Soil Upturned” and began to guess that state farms appeared either in the late 20s or early 30s. But the answer turns out to be simple. The first state farms appeared in 1918, as the first socialist farms, which, according to the idea of ​​​​their creators, were supposed to show how well the socialists could manage agriculture, so that out of envy all the peasants would run to work at these state farms. But it didn't work out. And it turned out that in the mid-20s, the most effective owners were kulaks. So the emergence of collective farms was not without reason. It’s just that the communists decided in this way Once again improve your financial condition at someone else's expense. You can read how collectivization took place either in dissident literature, or, if you like, in the article by Comrade Stalin in the newspaper Pravda, “Dizziness from success.” Both here and there it is shown that it was collectivization that destroyed the beginnings of private business in agriculture and brought back the times of serfdom.

On the issue of forms of ownership

For Soviet people, the words about the existence of collective property in the USSR were an empty phrase. Formally, the collective farm was considered a collective farm, to the surprise of the collective farmers. It was believed that the state farm was led by a director, who was appointed by representatives of state local authorities, in agreement with the district party committee, but the chairman of the collective farm was elected by the collective farmers themselves at a meeting. In practice, everything looked different. A representative of the district party committee came to the meeting and indicated who could be the chairman of the collective farm. The voting itself was a complete fiction, and the peasants knew very well that “vote, don’t vote, it’s all the same (cut out by censorship).” In fact, both the director of the state farm and the chairman of the collective farm depended on the goodwill of the district party committee. At the same time, he knew that he could be removed from work or appointed only with the approval of the same district party committee. Moreover, if he committed a criminal offense, he could not be afraid of anything if the district party committee stood up for him and he was not expelled from the party. Since there was an unwritten rule, it was impossible to condemn a member of the CPSU, only public censure. It is not surprising that the same directors of state farms and chairmen of collective farms on their farms behaved like landowners on their estates. The peasants, although they cursed at their leaders, were also afraid, since they were very dependent on them and understood that, if desired, the same collective farm chairman could easily send a rebel to a couple of years to cut down forest in the taiga.

Who controlled agriculture

The USSR had a planned economy, which means that everyone lived according to the plans that were given to them by higher organizations. Initially, the USSR State Planning Committee and the USSR State Supply Committee developed a plan for national economy, including in agriculture. Despite the presence of huge research institutes under the Gosplan and Gossnab, which were obliged to objectively calculate how much and what kind of agricultural products needed to be produced in order to have enough for the whole people, in reality, when planning, they used the proven “stele” method. This is when they took the numbers from previous years, looked at the ceiling (stele) and came up with new tasks for New Year and the next five years. As a result, the plans were unbalanced, and it was actually impossible to implement them, since these plans did not take into account either natural and climatic conditions, or the availability of equipment and planting material, and even more so the specifics of agricultural work.

Plans developed in Moscow were sent down to the republics. Then the State Planning Committee of the Ukrainian SSR distributed planning tasks to regional plans, and they already distributed them to district plans, they, in turn, brought the plans to a specific state farm and collective farm. Moreover, this process was eternal. Throughout the previous year, plan targets were coordinated and redistributed between state and collective farms, but as soon as the new year began, endless adjustments began to be made to the plan, which were made throughout calendar year. At the end of the year, when it was necessary to report on the implementation of the plan, it was very difficult to understand what the original plan was. As a result, everyone was engaged in postscripts and fraud, starting from the chairman of the collective farm and ending with the secretary of the CPSU Central Committee for Agriculture. Everyone knew this and played this game together.

The clever chairman of a collective farm or the director of a state farm was so competent in organizing a fishing or hunting trip for the party and Soviet authorities that, as a result, record-breaking collective and state farms appeared in the country. They simply shamelessly underestimated the planned targets and as a result, the managers of these farms and individual milkmaids and combine operators received the Hero of Socialist Labor. But food products, just as they were not on store shelves, were no longer available.

On agricultural production in the USSR

The problem with agriculture was that it had no real owner. As a result, the head of a collective or state farm stole machines, and ordinary collective farmers stole bags. Moreover, this theft was not considered something criminal, since the wage system in Soviet agriculture seemed to suggest “your salary is not enough, so go and steal.” Officially, wages in agriculture were 30-40% lower than in industry.

The products produced by collective and state farms were purchased only by the state. Accordingly, since there was only one buyer, he set deliberately low prices for agricultural products. There was a time when a liter of milk cost less than a liter of canteen mineral water. But even low prices for agricultural products during the Soviet era were not a problem. The biggest problem is that orders for goods were distributed to state and collective farms last. In the USSR, money in an account mattered little. Individual collective farms had millions of rubles in their bank accounts, but this meant nothing. Since it was possible to obtain equipment, fuel, other industrial and household goods only if there was an order to receive the goods, which was issued by the local department of the State Supply Committee. First of all, Gossnab issued orders to military-industrial complex enterprises, industrial and construction enterprises, and only lastly to state and collective farms. Therefore, getting the most basic industrial goods for rural enterprises was a problem.

This is how collective farms competed with factories. Collective farms strove to work as little as possible and hand over as little food to the state as possible, and factories strove to produce as little as possible and complained about the lack of food.

But, besides food production, the USSR had the most big problem This is the storage and processing of agricultural products. According to Soviet standards, losses of vegetables and fruits during storage were allowed in the amount of 30-40%. In practice, more than half of the grown vegetables and fruits were lost. There were not enough elevators, warehouses and food industry enterprises themselves. At each congress of the CPSU they called for more factories to be built in the food industry. And they built, but everything somehow got in the way, and as a result, already at the beginning of 1980, a commodity famine began, which already in the late 80s buried the USSR with its management methods.

Very briefly about agricultural lending in the USSR

The economy is planned, so there was a plan to issue loans to agriculture for the calendar year, broken down by month. The directors of state and collective farms tried with all their hands and feet not to take these loans. From time to time, for not receiving loans according to the plan, they received a beating at the bureau of the district party committee. And they had to go through I don’t want to take these loans. The rates were a paltry 3-4%, there were even loans at 0.5% per annum. But they very often did not repay these loans and did not pay interest. Firstly, they simply didn’t need money, they needed Gossnab outfits. Secondly, they knew that from time to time these loans would be canceled and everyone would be happy. The State Bank for these loans did not have the opportunity to collect the collateral, much less punish the debtor in any way. But at every congress of the CPSU they loved to tell how much money was invested in agriculture and how many loans were issued for its development.

Collective farm (collective farm) is a cooperative organization of voluntarily united peasants to jointly conduct large-scale socialist agricultural production on the basis of social means of production and collective labor. Collective farms in our country were created in accordance with the cooperative plan developed by V.I. Lenin, in the process of collectivization of agriculture (see Cooperative plan).

Collective farms in the village began to be created immediately after the victory October revolution. Peasants united for the joint production of agricultural products in agricultural communes, partnerships for joint cultivation of land (TOZ), and agricultural artels. These were different shapes cooperation, differing in the level of socialization of the means of production and the procedure for distributing income among the participating peasants.

In the early 30s. Complete collectivization was carried out throughout the country and the agricultural artel (collective farm) became the main form of collective farming. Its advantages are that it socializes the main means of production - land, working and productive livestock, machinery, equipment, outbuildings; the public and personal interests of artel members are correctly combined. Collective farmers own residential buildings, part of the productive livestock, etc., and they use small plots of land. These basic provisions were reflected in the Model Charter of the Agricultural Artel, adopted by the Second All-Union Congress of Collective Farmers-Shock Workers (1935).

During the years of Soviet power, great changes took place in collective farm life. Collective farms have accumulated a wealth of experience in running large collective farms. The political consciousness of the peasants increased. The alliance of workers and peasants with the leading role of the working class became even stronger. A new material and technical production base has been created, which has made it possible to develop agriculture on a modern industrial basis. The material and cultural standard of living of collective farmers has increased. They actively participate in the construction of a communist society. The collective farm system not only saved the working peasantry from exploitation and poverty, but also made it possible to establish a new system of social relations in the countryside, which led to the complete overcoming of class differences in Soviet society.

The changes that took place were taken into account in the new Model Charter of the collective farm, adopted by the Third All-Union Congress of Collective Farmers in November 1969. The name “agricultural artel” was omitted from it, because the word “collective farm” acquired international significance and in any language means a large collective socialist agricultural enterprise.

A collective farm is a large mechanized socialist agricultural enterprise, its main activity is the production of crop and livestock products. The collective farm organizes production on land that is state property and is assigned to the collective farm for free and indefinite use. The collective farm bears full responsibility to the state for correct use land, increasing its level of fertility in order to increase the production of agricultural products.

A collective farm can create and operate subsidiary enterprises and industries, but not to the detriment of agriculture.

There are 25.9 thousand collective farms in the USSR (1981). On average, a collective farm accounts for 6.5 thousand hectares of agricultural land (including 3.8 thousand hectares of arable land), 41 physical tractors, 12 combines, 20 trucks. Many collective farms have built modern greenhouses and livestock breeding complexes, and are organizing production on an industrial basis.

Collective farms in all their activities are guided by the collective farm charter, which is adopted on each farm by the general meeting of collective farmers on the basis of the new Model collective farm charter.

The economic basis of the collective farm is the collective farm-cooperative ownership of the means of production.

The collective farm organizes agricultural production and the labor of collective farmers, using various forms for this - tractor-field and complex teams, livestock farms, various units and production areas. The activities of production units are organized on the basis of cost accounting.

As on state farms, a new, progressive form of labor organization is increasingly being used - one uniform at a time with lump-sum bonus payment (see State Farm).

Citizens who have reached the age of 16 and who have expressed a desire to participate in social production through their labor can be members of a collective farm. Each member of the collective farm has the right to get work in the public economy and is obliged to participate in social production. The collective farm has a guaranteed wage. In addition, additional payment is applied for the quality of products and work, various forms of material and moral incentives. Collective farmers receive pensions for old age, disability, loss of breadwinner, vouchers to sanatoriums and rest homes at the expense of funds social insurance and provision created on collective farms.

The highest governing body for all affairs of the collective farm is the general meeting of collective farmers (in large farms - the meeting of authorized representatives). The basis for the organization of collective farm management is collective farm democracy. This means that all production and social issues of the development of a given collective farm are decided by the members of this farm. General meetings of collective farmers (meetings of authorized representatives) must be held, according to the Model Charter of the collective farm, at least 4 times a year. The management bodies of the collective farm and its production divisions are elected by open or secret ballot.

For the permanent management of the affairs of the collective farm, the general meeting elects the chairman of the collective farm for a period of 3 years and the board of the collective farm. Control over the activities of the board and all officials carried out by the audit commission of the collective farm, which is also elected at the general meeting and is accountable to it.

In order to further develop collective farm democracy, collective discussion of the most important issues in the life and activities of collective farms, collective farm councils were created - Union, republican, regional and district.

Socialist society carries out planned management of collective farm production by establishing a state plan for the purchase of agricultural products for each collective farm. The state provides collective farms with modern equipment, fertilizers and other material resources.

The main tasks of collective farms: to fully develop and strengthen the public economy, increase the production and sale of agricultural products to the state, steadily increase labor productivity and the efficiency of social production, carry out work on the communist education of collective farmers under the leadership of the party organization, and gradually transform villages and villages into modern comfortable settlements. Modern residential buildings have been built and gasification has been installed on many collective farms. All collective farmers use electricity from state networks. A modern collective farm village has excellent cultural centers - clubs, libraries, its own art galleries, museums, etc. are being created here. The difference between a city resident and a collective farmer in terms of level of education is practically erased.

At the XXVI Congress Communist Party The Soviet Union pointed out the need to further strengthen and develop the material and technical base of collective farms, improve cultural and everyday services for their workers (see Agriculture).

The Constitution of the USSR states: “The state promotes the development of collective farm-cooperative property and its rapprochement with state property.”

State farm (Soviet farm) is a state agricultural enterprise. It, like any industrial enterprise - plant, factory, is state property, the property of the entire people.

The creation of state farms was an integral part of V.I. Lenin’s cooperative plan. They were intended to serve as a school for large-scale collective agricultural production for the working peasantry.

The economic basis of state farms is the nationwide, state ownership of land and other means of production. Their economic activity aimed at producing products for the population and raw materials for industry. All state farms have a charter. They carry out their activities on the basis of the Regulations on the Socialist State Production Enterprise.

There are 21.6 thousand state farms in the system of the Ministry of Agriculture (1981). On average, one state farm accounts for 16.3 thousand hectares of agricultural land, including 5.3 thousand hectares of arable land, 57 tractors.

State farms and other state farms account for up to 60% of grain procurement, up to 33% of raw cotton, up to 59% of vegetables, up to 49% of livestock and poultry, and up to 87% of eggs.

State farms organize their production depending on natural and economic conditions, taking into account state plans, and on the basis of economic calculations. Distinctive feature production activities of state farms - a higher level of specialization.

When creating any state farm, the main agricultural sector is determined for it, from which it receives its main production direction - grain, poultry farming, cotton farming, pig farming, etc. In order to better use the state farm's land, agricultural equipment and labor resources, additional agricultural sectors are created - crop farming is combined with livestock farming and vice versa.

State farms play a major role in improving the general culture of agriculture in our country. They produce seeds of high-quality varieties of agricultural crops, highly productive breeds of animals and sell them to collective farms and other farms.

State farms can create various auxiliary enterprises and industries - repair shops, oil mills, cheese-making shops, production of building materials, etc.

The planned management of state farms is based on the principle of democratic centralism. Higher organizations (trust, association of state farms, etc.) determine for each state farm a state plan for the purchase of agricultural products for a five-year period and distribute it for each year. Production planning (size of sown areas, number of animals, timing of work) is carried out directly on the state farms themselves. Every year, economic and social development plans are drawn up here, which define activities for the coming (planned) year.

The organizational and production structure of a state farm is determined by the specialization of the farm, its size in terms of land area and gross output. The main form of labor organization is a production team (tractor, complex, livestock, etc.) - The team of such a team consists of permanent workers.

Depending on the size of the state farm, various forms of management organization are used. In most cases, this is a three-stage structure: state farm - department - brigade (farm). Each division is headed by a corresponding leader: state farm director - department manager - foreman.

The development of specialization processes and an increase in production volumes created conditions on state farms for the application of the sectoral structure of production organization and management. In this case, instead of departments, corresponding workshops are created (crop production, livestock production, mechanization, construction, etc.). Then the management structure looks like this: state farm director - shop manager - foreman. The workshops are usually headed by the chief specialists of the state farm. It is also possible to use a mixed (combined) structure for organizing production and management. This option is used in cases where one industry in the economy has a higher level of development. With this scheme, an industry division is created for this industry (protected soil vegetable growing workshop, dairy cattle breeding workshop, feed production workshop), and all other industries operate in departments.

In all state farms, as well as in industrial enterprises, workers are paid in the form of wages. Its size is determined by production standards for a 7-hour working day and prices for each unit of work and product. In addition to the basic salary, there is material incentives for exceeding planned targets, for obtaining high-quality products, for saving money and materials.

Increasingly, mechanized units, detachments, brigades and farms work according to a single order with a lump sum bonus payment. Such collective contracting is based on self-financing. Payment depends not on the total volume of work performed, not on the number of hectares processed, but on the final result of the farmer’s work - the harvest. Livestock breeders receive financial incentives not for the head of livestock, but for high milk yields and weight gain. This makes it possible to more closely align the interests of each employee and the entire team, increasing their responsibility for obtaining the final high results with minimal labor and money.

Collective contracting is being increasingly introduced into state and collective farms. It is successfully used in the Yampolsky district of the Vinnitsa region, regional agro-industrial associations of Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, and other republics.

Party, trade union, and Komsomol organizations provide great assistance to the management of the state farm in solving its production and social problems. The public of the state farm takes part in discussing and carrying out activities to fulfill planned targets for the production and sale of products to the state, improving the working and living conditions of all state farm workers.

Modern state farms are the largest agricultural enterprises in the world in terms of production size. The introduction of achievements of scientific and technological progress, the transfer of agricultural production to an industrial basis contribute to their transformation into real factories of grain, milk, eggs, meat, fruits, etc.

The widespread use of new methods of organizing production is also making changes in the qualifications of state farm workers, new professions are appearing, for example: machine milking operator, livestock farm operator, etc. Among the engineering and technical personnel of state farms are electronic equipment engineers, engineers and technicians in control and measuring equipment and instruments, heating engineers, process engineers for processing agricultural products and many other specialists.

Cooperative Plan- this is a plan for the socialist reorganization of the countryside through the gradual voluntary unification of small private peasant farms into large collective farms, in which the achievements of scientific and technological progress are widely used and wide scope is opened for the socialization of production and labor.

There are 25.9 thousand collective farms in the USSR. Each farm is a large, highly mechanized enterprise with qualified personnel. Collective farms annually supply the state significant amount grain, potatoes, raw cotton, milk, meat, and other products. Every year the culture of the village grows, the life of collective farmers improves.

Let's remember the story. What did a village look like in pre-revolutionary Russia? Before the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia there were over 20 million small peasant farms, of which 65% were poor, 30% were horseless, 34% had no equipment. The “equipment” of peasant households consisted of 7.8 million plows and roe deer, 6.4 million plows, 17.7 million wooden harrows. Need, darkness, ignorance were the lot of millions of peasants. V.I. Lenin, who studied in detail the difficult and powerless situation of the village residents, wrote: “The peasant was reduced to a beggarly standard of living: he was housed with livestock, dressed in rags, fed on quinoa... The peasants were chronically hungry and tens of thousands died of starvation and epidemics during crop failures, which returned more and more often.”

The socialist transformation of agriculture was the most difficult task after the conquest of power by the working class. V.I. Lenin developed the fundamentals of the Communist Party's policy on the agrarian issue. The great genius of mankind clearly saw the socialist future of the peasantry and the paths along which it was necessary to go towards this future. V. I. Lenin outlined the plan for the socialist reconstruction of the village in his articles “On Cooperation”, “On the Food Tax” and some other works. These works entered the history of our state as the cooperative plan of V.I. Lenin. In it, Vladimir Ilyich outlined the basic principles of cooperation: the voluntariness of peasants joining the collective farm; gradual transition from lower to higher forms of cooperation; material interest in joint production cooperation; combination of personal and public interests; establishing a strong bond between city and countryside; strengthening the fraternal union of workers and peasants and the formation of socialist consciousness among village residents.

V.I. Lenin believed that first it was necessary to widely involve peasants in simple cooperative associations: consumer associations, marketing of agricultural products, supply of goods, etc. Later, when the peasants are convinced of their great advantage through experience, they can move on to production cooperation. This was a simple and accessible way for many millions of peasants to transition from small individual farms to large socialist enterprises, a way to involve the peasant masses in the construction of socialism.

The Great October Socialist Revolution put an end to the oppression of capitalists and landowners in our country forever. On October 25, 1917, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, based on the report of V.I. Lenin, adopted the Decrees on Peace and Land. The Decree on Land announced the confiscation of all landowners' and church land and its transfer to state ownership. The nationalization of land and its transformation into public property became an important prerequisite for the further transition of agriculture to the socialist path of development.

In the very first years of Soviet power, societies for joint cultivation of land and agricultural artels began to be created. Some of the landowners' estates were turned into state Soviet farms - sovkhozes. But all these were only the first steps of collectivization. That is why in 1927, at the XV Congress of the CPSU (b), a program of complete collectivization was adopted. The country began work on an unprecedented scale to socialize agricultural production. Collective farms were organized everywhere, and the foundations of a new life in the countryside were laid. The Soviet government took all necessary measures to provide the villages with equipment. Already in 1923-1925. About 7 thousand domestic tractors arrived in the villages.

In 1927, the first state machine and tractor station (MTS) was organized. Subsequently, their mass construction began. MTS served collective farms with a variety of equipment. MTS became strongholds of the Soviet state in the countryside, active conductors of party policy. With the help of MTS, the greatest technical revolution in USSR agriculture was carried out. At the call of the party, about 35 thousand of the best representatives of the working class went to the villages and headed collective farms.

COLLECTIVE FARMS (collective farms, agricultural artels), in the USSR, large semi-state agricultural enterprises in which the labor of peasants and all the main means of production (inventory, outbuildings, commercial and draft livestock, etc.) were socialized; the land occupied by the collective farm was state property and was assigned to the collective farm for indefinite (eternal) use. Created mainly in 1929-37 during the process of collectivization of individual peasant farms with the aim of establishing state control over the production and distribution of agricultural products, replacing the natural and small-scale production system with large-scale socialized commercial production of agricultural products. Along with state farms, they remained the main form of agricultural production in the socialist economy. In 1917-29, the term “collective farm” was often used in relation to any form of collective farming - agricultural communes, partnerships for joint cultivation of land, agricultural, fishing, hunting and other cooperatives.

The main form of collective farms, by the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the pace of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction” (January 1930), was recognized as an agricultural artel with a high degree of socialization of labor and means of production, which actually excluded the possibility of voluntary unification of commodity farms (unlike cooperatives based on voluntary association of production, sales or credit operations). With the creation of collective farms, residential and outbuildings in the peasant yard, small implements, and livestock remained in the personal property of the peasants in the amount provided for by the Model Charter of the Agricultural Artel (adopted in March 1930, in a new edition in February 1935), and in use - a small personal plot land for personal farming. Peasants were accepted into collective farms from the age of 16, except for those who were classified as kulaks, as well as persons who did not have voting rights (an exception under certain conditions could be made for their children).

An ordinary collective farm of the early 1930s was an enterprise organized on the basis of peasants' implements and draft horses, which, as a rule, covered one village and had an average arable area of ​​about 400 hectares. The main form of labor organization on the collective farm was a permanent production team - a collective of collective farmers, to whom were assigned for a long period of time land plot and the necessary means of production. Mechanized cultivation of the land on the collective farm was carried out with the help of state enterprises - machine and tractor stations (MTS; created since 1929). Formally, the highest governing body on the collective farm was the general meeting of collective farmers, which elected the chairman, board and audit commission. In fact, all important decisions were made under strict administrative pressure and control of party and government agencies. People were elected to the position of collective farm chairman on the recommendation or on the direct instructions of district party committees, often city residents who understood little about agricultural production. With the introduction of the passport system in the USSR (resolution of the Central Executive Committee and Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated December 27, 1932), collective farmers were excluded from the number of persons receiving passports, which made it difficult for them to move freely and find employment outside the collective farm.

The relationship between collective farms and the state was initially built on the basis of contract agreements. The size of the grain supply was determined by the state plan, which was drawn up in the summer in accordance with the harvest plans and was often changed upward. In January 1933, mandatory, tax-like supplies of collective farms to the state (procurement) of grain, rice, sunflowers, potatoes, meat, milk, wool, as well as per-hectare (from 1936 - income) taxation were introduced. It was not the barn yield that was taken into account, but the biological one (it was 20-30% higher than the actual threshing). State procurement prices, as a rule, did not exceed collective farm costs. The remaining main products or some minor types of agricultural products (down, feathers, bristles, etc.) after mandatory deliveries could be sold by collective farms to the state at fixed (higher than procurement) prices. The sale of agricultural products to the state was encouraged by granting the collective farm and collective farmers the right to buy scarce industrial goods at purchasing fund prices. Another channel for the redistribution of agricultural products in favor of the state was the obligation of collective farms to pay for the work of MTS with grain; as the number of MTS grew, the size of payment grew (by 1937 - about 1/3 of the harvest).

Among the members of the collective farm, the products were distributed by workday on the basis of the residual principle: after settlement with the state for procurement, return of seed loans, payment of MTS, renewal of seed and fodder funds and sale of part of the products to the state or on the collective farm market. The cash income of the collective farm was distributed according to the same principle. Until the mid-1950s, the average payment for a collective farm workday was about 36% of the average daily wage of an industrial worker, and annual earnings were 3 times less than on state farms and 4 times less than in industry.

Most of the food products consumed by the collective farmers themselves, with the exception of bread, were provided by personal plots (they became the only source of food for peasants in lean years, when workdays were practically not paid). Part of the livestock products produced there went to the state fund through in-kind agricultural taxes and fees or was sold by peasants on the market. Therefore, the state, on the one hand, was interested in the development of household plots, on the other hand, it was afraid of this development, seeing in household plots a threat to the revival of private property and main reason distracting peasants from working on collective farms. Resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR “On measures to protect public lands of collective farms from squandering” and “On measures for the development of public livestock farming on collective farms” (both 1939) ordered the cutting off of “surpluses” from household plots in excess of established norms (in the same year 2.5 million hectares of land were cut off) and the confiscation of “extra” livestock from collective farmers was intensified. An effective form of limiting the size of personal plots was taxation.

The Great Patriotic War dealt a heavy blow to collective farms. Cultivated areas in 1941-1945 decreased by 20%, and the provision of collective farms with basic production assets decreased by a quarter. Large livestock cattle was less than 80% of the pre-war level, pigs - about half. Women and teenagers became the main workforce on collective farms. Brigades formed from city residents began to be sent to help collective farmers to harvest the harvest. Despite the departure of most of the male population of collective farms to the front, wartime difficulties, a decrease in gross grain harvests and the loss of grain-growing regions occupied by German troops, collective farms in 1941-44 prepared about 70 million tons of grain (in the 1st world war about 23 million tons were prepared and purchased).

In the late 1940s - early 1950s, thanks to the beginning of the implementation of large-scale government programs aimed at strengthening the material and technical base and improving the organization of collective farms, agricultural production was restored. In 1952 it was 101% of the level of 1940. However, the rural economy was still far from recovering from the damage caused by the war and the mobilization measures of the state in the first post-war years. The crop failure of 1953 and the threat of a new famine forced the government to disburse a significant part of the state reserve to cover food needs.

After the death of I.V. Stalin in 1953 and the abolition of repressive measures aimed at forcing peasants to work, the new Soviet leadership, on the initiative of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR G.M. Malenkov, made an attempt to overcome the crisis of agricultural production to increase the interest of collective farmers in the results of their labor by weakening putting pressure on collective farms, strengthening their economic independence, and supporting private farms. In September 1953, the plenum of the CPSU Central Committee for the first time raised the question of the need to improve the living standards of collective farmers and called on local authorities to stop the practice of infringing on their interests in relation to subsidiary farming. All arrears on mandatory supplies of livestock products to the state were written off from collective farmers' farms. The standards for state supplies of agricultural products were significantly reduced, and procurement and purchasing prices were significantly increased. Instead of an income tax on personal plots, as a result of which the most zealous peasants found themselves at a loss, a tax was introduced on the area of ​​household plots at a fixed rate, regardless of the size of the total amount of income. Tax amounts were reduced in 1953 by 50% and in 1954 by 30% for farms that did not have cows. At the same time, for families of collective farmers, in which individual members did not work the established minimum workdays in the past year, the tax was increased by half. The resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR “On changing the practice of agricultural planning” (9.3.1955) obliged local authorities to communicate to collective farms only general indicators on the volume of procurement; collective farms received the right to carry out specific production planning at their own discretion. The new Charter of the agricultural artel of 1956 gave collective farms the right to determine the size of peasants' plots, the number of livestock that were in personal ownership, establish a minimum of workdays, and make changes to the Charter of the agricultural artel in relation to local conditions. On collective farms, monthly advances of labor and a form of cash payment at differentiated rates were introduced. In the summer of 1957, the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted a joint resolution “On the abolition of mandatory supplies of agricultural products to the state by the farms of collective farmers, workers and employees” (came into force on January 1, 1958). The supply of agricultural products began to be carried out in the form public procurement based on long-term plans with the distribution of planned targets by year. The issuance of interest-free cash advances was established. At the same time, the leaders of the state and the CPSU, mainly N. S. Khrushchev (continued reforming agriculture after the release of Malenkov from the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers in January 1955), relied on achieving a sharp rise in agriculture by creating large farms and expanding production: grain - due to virgin land development (since 1954), livestock farming - due to the widespread spread of fodder corn crops (since 1955). The consolidation of collective farms and their transformation into state farms was accompanied by the centralization of management, agrotechnical, engineering services, and the construction of central estates; hundreds of thousands of villages were declared “unpromising.” Agricultural equipment of the abolished MTS was sold to collective farms (according to the law “On the further strengthening of the collective farm system and the reorganization of machine and tractor stations” dated March 31, 1958). This justified, but hasty and poorly prepared measure led to exorbitant financial costs, undermining the repair base of collective farms, and a massive “drain” of machine operators from the village.

“Field work can’t wait!” Poster. Artist V.I. Govorkov. 1954.

During 1953-58, gross agricultural output increased almost 1.5 times, livestock production doubled, the volume of commercial agricultural products increased 1.8 times (in 1953-1958, cash and natural income of collective farmers increased 1.6 times, the issuance of money for the workday increased threefold), but in 1959 the grain harvest began to decline, including on virgin lands. For the first time, grain consumption exceeded state procurements (in 1963, management was forced to purchase it abroad; this practice became systematic). In order to fulfill inflated plans for meat and dairy products (in 1957 the task was set to catch up with the United States in the next 3-4 years in the production of meat, butter and milk per capita), collective farms began to resort to codicils, as well as forcibly buying out cows from peasants, threatening not to allocate them feed and pasture. In turn, the peasants began to slaughter their livestock. The feed problem worsened: the “corn campaign” failed (it was carried out everywhere, including in climatically unsuitable zones), and traditional perennial forage grasses were plowed up. In 1956-60, the number of livestock on personal plots decreased noticeably (from 35.3% in relation to the total number of productive livestock in the country to 23.3%), on collective farms it increased slightly (from 45.7% to 49.8%). ). By purchasing equipment from MTS (often forcibly), collective farms fell into debt. All this led to a deterioration in the food situation in the country. In 1961, a serious shortage of meat, milk, butter, and bread arose in the USSR. Trying to solve the food problem, the government in 1962 increased purchase prices for meat and poultry by an average of 35% and accordingly increased retail prices for meat and dairy products by 25-30%, which led to unrest in a number of cities, including Novocherkassk (see Novocherkassk events 1962).

Measures were required aimed at intensifying agricultural production based on the widespread use of fertilizers, the development of irrigation, comprehensive mechanization and the introduction of scientific achievements and best practices to quickly increase agricultural production. They received serious attention at the plenums of the Central Committee (December 1963, February 1964, March 1965). Since the mid-1960s, attempts have been made again to increase the productivity of collective farm production by increasing the material interest of collective farmers and expanding the economic independence of collective farms. The plan for mandatory grain purchases was reduced and declared unchanged for the next 10 years. Purchasing prices for agricultural products have been increased by 1.5-2 times. A 50% premium was provided for above-plan production, and prices for equipment and spare parts were reduced. All debts were written off from collective farms. The number of reporting indicators sent down from above has been reduced. Collective farms were given the right to independent planning within the limits of state assignments. This led to an increase in the production of agricultural products and had a positive impact on trade at collective farm markets. The supply of meat, dairy products, vegetables, and fruits has increased, and prices have noticeably decreased. In 1964, collective farmers received the right to state pensions for old age (men at 65 years old, women at 60 years old), disability and in the event of loss of a breadwinner. In accordance with the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated May 16, 1966 “On increasing the material interest of collective farmers in the development of social production,” collective farms began to switch to guaranteed monthly wages, based on the tariff rates of the corresponding categories of state farm workers (in 1969, more than 95% of collective farms switched) . To ensure a guarantee of wages, the State Bank was allowed to provide loans (if collective farms lacked their own funds) for a period of 5 years with repayment starting after 3 years. The new Model Charter (1969) provided for the establishment of a standardized working day on collective farms, the introduction of paid holidays, disability benefits and other measures to expand the rights of collective farmers. The timing of agricultural work was optimized, and the supply of mineral fertilizers increased sharply. However, in general, the reforms of the 1960s did not lead to the expected increase in the efficiency of the collective farm system, since the payment of collective farmers was not associated with an increase in the volume of agricultural products and a decrease in its cost.

In an effort to stimulate the labor productivity of collective farmers, the state in the late 1970s began to encourage collective contracting and the creation of collectives intensive technologies, in which wages depended on the final result. Since 1976, in accordance with the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR “On measures to further improve the passport system in the USSR” (1974), collective farmers, like all Soviet citizens, were issued passports (since 1959, collective farmers who went to work in the city were issued temporary passports) . The steady increase in state investment in the development of collective farms and agriculture in general (3.5 billion rubles in the mid-1960s, 55 billion rubles in the mid-1980s) was accompanied by a decrease in returns from them. Cash and equipment supplied to the village were used in the form of indivisible funds that were not economically related to the material interests of collective farmers. And the increase in funding was accompanied by increased centralization and, as a consequence, bureaucratization in the sphere of regulation of agricultural production. The annual growth rate of agricultural output gradually decreased: 4.3% in 1966-70, 2.9% in 1971-75, 1.8% in 1976-80, 1.1% in 1981-85. By 1980, the level of profitability on collective farms was 0.4%, the production of 7 of the 13 main types of agricultural products was unprofitable. The annual attraction of labor from the cities to help collective farms helped in harvesting, but could not bring the collective farm system out of the crisis. The 1982 Food Program provided for the improvement of the agricultural sector based on the industrial modernization of agricultural production, but did not envisage a qualitative transformation of the collective and state farm system. Therefore, it had only a temporary effect thanks to large financial injections into the agro-industrial complex.

In the second half of the 1980s, a course was set for the large-scale and widespread introduction of collective, family and individual rental contracts, but the process of “de-peasantization” of the village went too far and these measures did not help. During the implementation of radical market reforms in the 1990s, the cost of agricultural machinery, fuel, and electricity constantly grew, the price of finished products collective farms fell; in connection with the government's policy on the development of farms has ceased governmental support collective farms. In the early 1990s, many collective and state farms were reorganized into share partnerships (joint stock companies) with full or limited liability, some of them disintegrated, 2.9 thousand (8.8% of all agricultural enterprises) were transformed into agricultural cooperatives with the name retained "collective farm".

Source: Documents show. From the history of the village on the eve and during collectivization of 1927-1932. M., 1996; The tragedy of the Soviet village. Collectivization and dispossession. 1927-1939: Documents and materials. M., 1999-2006. T. 1-5.

Lit.: Venzher V. G. Collective farm system at the present stage. M., 1966; Zelenin I. E. Agrarian policy of N. S. Khrushchev and agriculture. M., 2001; Rogalina N. L. Collective farms in the system of state socialism in the USSR (1930s - 1970s) // Economic history. Yearbook. 2003. M., 2004.

The word “collective farm” for foreigners has always been one of the symbols of the USSR. Perhaps because they did not understand what it meant (just as they understood little about the peculiarities of the Soviet way of life). Today, Russian youth strive to use this word to describe everything that does not correspond to their ideas about a “beautiful” life, “modernity” and “progress.” Most likely the reason is the same.

Land for peasants

The Decree on Land became one of the first two decrees of the Soviet government. This document proclaimed the abolition of landownership and the transfer of land to those who work on it.

But this slogan could be understood in different ways. The peasants perceived the decree as an opportunity for themselves to become land owners (and this was literally their crystal dream). For this reason, a significant number of the peasantry supported the Soviet regime.

The government itself believed that since it was building a state of workers and peasants, then everything that belonged to it, the state, belonged to them. Thus it was assumed. That the land in the country is state-owned, it can simply be used only by those who will work on it themselves, without exploiting others.

Artel farming

In the first years of Soviet power, this principle was quite successfully put into practice. No, not all the lands taken from the “exploiting class” were distributed to the peasants, but such divisions were carried out. At the same time, the Bolsheviks carried out explanatory work in favor of organizing collective farms. This is how the abbreviation “kolkhoz” (from “collective farm”) arose. A collective farm is a peasant association of a cooperative type in which participants pool their “production capacities” (land, equipment), jointly perform work, and then distribute the results of the work among themselves. This is how the collective farm differed from the “sovkhoz” (“Soviet farm”). These were created by the state, usually on landowner farms, and those who worked in them received a fixed salary.

There were a number of peasants who appreciated the benefits of working together. A collective farm is not difficult if you think about it. So the first associations began to emerge in 1920 on a completely voluntary basis. Depending on the degree of socialization of property, different clarifying names were used for them - artels, communes. More often, only lands and essential tool(horses, equipment for plowing and sowing), but there were also cases of socialization of all livestock and even small equipment.

Little by little

The first collective farms for the most part achieved success, albeit not very significant. The state provided them with some assistance (materials, seed, tax benefits, occasionally with equipment), but in general a small number of peasant farms were united into collective farms. Depending on the region, the figure in the mid-20s could range from 10 to 40%, but more often it was no more than 20%. The rest of the peasants preferred to manage things the old fashioned way, but in their own way.

Machines for the dictatorship of the proletariat

By the mid-20s, the consequences of the revolution and wars had been largely overcome. According to most economic indicators, the country has reached the level of 1913. But this was catastrophically small. Firstly, even then Russia was technically noticeably inferior to the leading world powers, and during this time they managed to move quite far forward. Secondly, the “imperialist threat” was not at all the result of solely the paranoia of the Soviet leadership. It existed in reality; Western states had nothing against the military destruction of the incomprehensible Soviets, and at the same time the plunder of Russian resources.

It was impossible to create a powerful defense without powerful industry - guns, tanks and planes were required. Therefore, in 1926, the party announced the start of the course towards the industrialization of the USSR.

But grandiose (and very timely!) plans required funds. First of all, it was necessary to purchase industrial equipment and technologies - there was nothing like this at home. And only the agriculture of the USSR could provide funds.

Wholesale is more convenient

Individual peasants were difficult to control. It was impossible to reliably plan how much “food tax” we could get from them. And this was necessary to know in order to calculate how much income would be received from the export of agricultural products and how much equipment would have to be purchased as a result. In 1927, there was even a “bread crisis” - 8 times less tax in kind was received than expected.

In December 1927, the decision of the XV Party Congress on the collectivization of agriculture appeared as priority task. Collective farms in the USSR, where everyone was responsible for everyone else, were supposed to provide the country with the necessary amount of export products.

Dangerous speed

The collective farm was a good idea. But it was let down by the very short deadlines for implementation. It turned out that the Bolsheviks, who criticized the populists for their theories of “peasant socialism,” themselves stepped on the same rake. The influence of the community in the village was, to put it mildly, exaggerated, and the peasant's possessive instinct was very strong. In addition, the peasants were illiterate (this legacy of the past had yet to be overcome), they knew how to count poorly and were highly intelligent. narrow concepts. The benefits of joint farming and promising state interests were alien to them, and no time was allocated for explanation.

As a result, it turned out that the collective farm was an association into which the peasants began to be forced into. The process was accompanied by repressions against the most prosperous part of the peasantry - the so-called kulaks. The persecution was all the more unfair because the pre-revolutionary “world eaters” had been dispossessed long ago, and now there was a struggle against those who had successfully taken advantage of the opportunities provided by the revolution and the NEP. Also, they were often enrolled in the “kulaks” on the denunciation of a malicious neighbor or because of misunderstandings with a representative of the authorities - in some regions a fifth of the peasantry was repressed!

Comrades Davydovs

It was not only wealthy peasants who suffered as a result of the “pedaling” of collectivization in the USSR. Many victims were also among the grain purveyors, as well as the so-called “twenty-five thousanders” - communist workers sent to the villages in order to stimulate collective farm construction. Most of them were truly committed to the cause; the type of such an ascetic was depicted by M. Sholokhov in the image of Davydov in “Virgin Soil Upturned.”

But the book truthfully described the fate of most of these Davydovs. Already in 1929, anti-collective farm riots began in many regions, and twenty-five thousand people were brutally killed (usually along with their entire family). Rural communists, as well as activists of the “committees of the poor”, also died en masse (Makar Nagulnov from the same novel is also a true image).

I don’t know...

The acceleration of collectivization in the USSR led to its most terrible consequence - the famine of the early 30s. It covered precisely those regions where the most commercial grain was produced: the Volga region, the North Caucasus, the Saratov region, some regions of Siberia, Central and Southern Ukraine. Kazakhstan suffered greatly, where they tried to force nomads to grow bread.

The guilt of the government, which set unrealistic goals for grain procurement in conditions of serious crop failure (an abnormal drought occurred in the summer of 1932), in the death of millions of people from malnutrition is enormous. But no less blame lies with the possessive instinct. The peasants slaughtered their livestock en masse so that they would not become common. It’s scary, but in 1929-1930 there were frequent cases of death from overeating (again, let’s turn to Sholokhov and remember grandfather Shchukar, who ate his cow in a week, and then “couldn’t get out of the sunflowers” ​​for the same amount of time, suffering from stomach pain). They worked carelessly on the collective farm fields (not my thing - it’s not worth trying), and then they died of starvation, because there was nothing to get for their workdays. It should be noted that the cities were also starving - there was nothing to transport there either, everything was exported.

Grind - there will be flour

But gradually things improved. Industrialization also produced results in the field of agriculture - the first domestic tractors, combines, threshers and other equipment appeared. They began to supply it to collective farms, and labor productivity increased. The hunger has subsided. By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, there were practically no individual peasants left in the USSR, but agricultural production was growing.

Yes, just in case, mandatory passport registration was not provided for rural residents so that they could not flee to the city solely of their own free will. But mechanization in rural areas reduced the need for workers, and industry demanded them. So it was quite possible to leave the village. This caused an increase in the prestige of education in the countryside - industry did not need illiterate people, an excellent Komsomol student had a much better chance of leaving for the city than a poor student who was always busy in his own garden.

The winners are judged

The millions of victims of collectivization should be blamed on the Soviet leadership of the 30s. But this will be a case of trial of the victors, since the country’s leadership has achieved its goal. Against the backdrop of the global economic crisis, the USSR made an incredible industrial breakthrough and caught up (and in part overtook) the most developed economies of the world. This helped him repel Hitler's aggression. Consequently, the sacrifices of collectivization were, at least, not in vain - the industrialization of the country took place.

Together with the country

Collective farms were the brainchild of the USSR and died with it. Even during the era of perestroika, criticism of the collective farm system began (in some places fair, but not always), all sorts of “rental farms” appeared, “ family contracts“- the transition to individual management was again taking place. And after the collapse of the USSR, collective farms were liquidated. They became victims of privatization - their property was stolen from their homes by the new “effective owners”. Some of the former collective farmers became “farmers,” some became “agricultural holdings,” and some became hired laborers in the first two.

But in some places collective farms still exist. It’s just now customary to call them “ joint stock companies" and "rural cooperatives".

As if changing the name will increase productivity...

History of collective farms

The first collective farms

Collective farms in the countryside in Soviet Russia began to emerge starting in 1918. At the same time, there were three forms of such farms:

• An agricultural commune in which all means of production (buildings, small equipment, livestock) and land use were socialized. Consumption and consumer services for the members of the commune were entirely based on the public economy; the distribution was egalitarian: not according to work, but according to eaters. Members of the commune did not have their own private farming. Communes were organized mainly on former landowners' and monasteries' lands.

• An agricultural artel in which land use, labor and the main means of production were socialized - draft animals, machinery, equipment, productive livestock, outbuildings, etc. The residential building and subsidiary farm(including productive livestock), the size of which was limited by the charter of the artel. Income was distributed according to the quantity and quality of labor (by workdays).

• Partnership for joint cultivation of land (TOZ), in which land use and labor were socialized. Livestock, cars, equipment, and buildings remained the private property of the peasants. Income was distributed not only according to the amount of labor, but also depending on the size of share contributions and the value of the means of production provided to the partnership by each of its members.

As of June 1929, communes made up 6.2% of all communes in the country, TOZs 60.2%, and agricultural artels 33.6%.

Active collectivization

Since the spring of 1929, events aimed at increasing the number of collective farms were carried out in the countryside - in particular, Komsomol campaigns “for collectivization.” Mainly through the use of administrative measures, it was possible to achieve a significant increase in collective farms (mainly in the form of TOZs).

This caused sharp resistance from the peasantry. According to data from various sources, cited by O. V. Khlevnyuk, in January 1930, 346 mass protests were registered, in which 125 thousand people took part, in February - 736 (220 thousand), in the first two weeks of March - 595 (about 230 thousand). ), not counting Ukraine, where 500 settlements were affected by unrest. In March 1930, in general in Belarus, the Central Black Earth region, in the Lower and Middle Volga region, in the North Caucasus, in Siberia, in the Urals, in the Leningrad, Moscow, Western, Ivanovo-Voznesensk regions, in the Crimea and Central Asia 1,642 mass peasant protests were registered, in which at least 750-800 thousand people took part. In Ukraine at this time, more than a thousand settlements were already engulfed in unrest.

Fighting kinks

Collective farm charter

Most communes and TOZs in the early 1930s. switched to the Charter of the agricultural artel. The artel became the main, and then the only form of collective farms in agriculture. Subsequently, the name “agricultural artel” lost its meaning, and in the current legislation, party and government documents the name “collective farm” was used.

The approximate charter of the agricultural artel was adopted in 1930, its new edition was adopted in 1935 at the All-Union Congress of Collective Farmers-Shock Workers. The land was assigned to the artel for indefinite use and was not subject to sale or purchase or lease. The charters determined the size of personal land that was in the personal use of the collective farm yard - from 1/4 to 1/2 hectares (in some areas up to 1 hectare). The number of livestock that could be kept on a collective farmer’s personal farm was also determined. For regions of group 1 of the West Siberian Territory, for example, the livestock standards were as follows: 1 cow, up to 2 heads of young animals, 1 sow, up to 10 sheep and goats.

All workers who had reached the age of 16 could become members of the artel, except for former kulaks and disenfranchised (that is, those deprived of voting rights). The head of the farm - the chairman - was elected by general vote. The board of the collective farm was elected to assist the chairman.

Collective farms were obliged to conduct a planned economy, expand sown areas, increase productivity, etc. To service collective farms with equipment, machine and tractor stations were created.

The distribution of products was carried out in the following sequence: sale of products to the state at fixed, extremely low purchase prices, return of seed and other loans to the state, settlement with MTS for the work of machine operators, then filling of seeds and fodder for collective farm livestock, creation of an insurance seed and fodder fund. Everything else could be divided among collective farmers in accordance with the number of workdays they worked (that is, days of going to work during the year). One day worked on a collective farm could be counted as two or half days, depending on the different qualifications of the collective farmers. Blacksmiths, machine operators, and management staff of the collective farm administration earned the most workdays. Collective farmers earned the least in auxiliary work.

As a rule, collective farms did not have enough products to complete even the first two or three tasks. Collective farmers had to rely only on their subsidiary plots.

To stimulate collective farm labor, a mandatory minimum of workdays was established in 1939 (from 60 to 100 for each able-bodied collective farmer). Those who did not produce it were dropped out of the collective farm and lost all rights, including the right to a personal plot.

The state constantly monitored the use by collective farms of the land fund allocated to them and compliance with livestock standards. Periodic inspections of the size of household plots were carried out and excess land was confiscated. In 1939 alone, 2.5 million hectares of land were cut off from the peasants, after which all the remnants of farmsteads resettled in collective farm settlements were liquidated.

Since 1940, supplies of livestock products began to be carried out not by the number of heads of livestock (there were fewer and fewer of them), but by the amount of land occupied by collective farms. This order soon spread to all other agricultural products. This stimulated the use by collective farms of all arable land assigned to them.

Collective farms after the war

Until 1970, collective farmers did not have the right to have a passport, which was due to the authorities’ desire to keep peasants in the countryside. In the “Instructions on the procedure for registration and discharge of citizens by the executive committees of rural and township Soviets of Working People’s Deputies” adopted this year, approved by order of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, it was stated that “as an exception, it is allowed to issue passports to residents rural areas working in enterprises and institutions, as well as citizens who, due to the nature of the work performed, require identification documents.” This clause became widely used for issuing passports to collective farmers. But only in 1974 was a new “Regulation on the Passport System in the USSR” adopted, according to which passports began to be issued to all citizens of the USSR from the age of 16, for the first time including village residents and collective farmers. Full certification began, however, only on January 1, 1976 and ended on December 31, 1981. In six years, 50 million passports were issued in rural areas.

Stereotypical names

Collective farm named after Lenin- a common name for collective farms and other rural farms, used in different regions USSR, including both the RSFSR and all other union republics. After the collapse of the USSR and the liquidation of the Soviet system, many collective farms were transformed into economic societies, only a small part of them remained cooperatives. However, some of the former and existing collective farms named after Lenin, nevertheless, retained their names.

Agricultural enterprises - Collective farms named after Lenin

• Collective farm named after Lenin in the Ryazan region. The collective farm in the village of Grebnevo, Starozhilovsky district, Ryazan region, was founded in the year. Grows grain, produces meat and milk. The number of personnel is 250 people. 4000 hectares of arable land, of which 2500 are for grain, the harvest is 32-40 centners. 2500 heads of cattle, of which 800 are cows. Daily deliveries - 300 tons of livestock, 2.5 tons of milk. The collective farm funds support the nearby high school, kindergarten, House of Culture and other institutions social sphere. Chairman Balov Ivan Egorovich.

• Fishing collective farm named after Lenin in the Khabarovsk Territory. Collective farm in the village of Bulgin, Okhotsk district, Khabarovsk Territory. Engaged in fishing activities. Chairman Khomchenko Nikolai Mikhailovich.

• Collective farm named after V.I. Lenin in the Kamchatka Territory. Created in 1929. The largest fishing enterprise in the region. It is engaged in the extraction and processing of fish and seafood, and ship repair. It has: 29 ships, coastal infrastructure, a 6000t refrigerator, a fish processing factory, ship repair shops, berths, warehouses, a net sewing shop, and a motor vehicle fleet. Address Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, st. Cosmonauts, 40.

• Collective farm named after V.I. Lenin in Buryatia. Republic of Buryatia, Mukhorshibirsky district, village of Nikolsk. Types of activity: Breeding sheep and goats, growing grain and leguminous crops.

• People associated with collective farms named after. Lenin. From 1985 to 1987, President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko served as secretary of the party committee of the Lenin collective farm in the Shklovsky district.

Collective farm and collective farm life in art

• Guest from Kuban (film) - shows the life of a collective farm, harvesting, the work of MTS machine operators
• Kalina Krasnaya (film) - shows the work of collective farmers (driver, machine operator)
• Kuban Cossacks (film) - the life of collective farmers is shown in an embellished, ostentatious manner
• Ivan Brovkin on virgin soil (film) - shows the life of a virgin state farm
• Chairman - shows the life of the collective farm in the post-war years