Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

  Transcripts from the Soviet Archives VOLUME I  1903-1926   

Transcripts of the meetings of the Politburo of the Central Committee, August 2,1926

source: Transcripts of the meetings of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) ‐VKP (b) 1923‐1938. Moscow. ROSSPEN. 2007. Volume 2 1926‐1927. P. 271‐330

Archive: RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 163. D. 695 (uncorrected transcript). D.

696 (transcript with copyright and editorial changes).

August 2, 1926 1

Svidersky * (* The text is reproduced according to the uncorrected transcript since there is no copyright transcript.). I will begin with the question of state farm construction. State farm construction can now be divided into two periods: the first period of state farm construction must begin from 17‐18, from the October Revolution approximately until NEP, and the next period of state farm construction ‐ from the time of the introduction of NEP. The difference between both periods is as follows: in the first period, from the time of the October Revolution to the introduction of NEP, on the one hand, the task of the Soviet land bodies and other local authorities was to turn as many former estates as possible into state farms, preventing the process of robbery of estates that took place during the revolution. Secondly, since the country was experiencing famine, especially in the factory centers, the state farms were given importance as special ʺgrain factoriesʺ therefore, in the field of state farm construction, there was a strong tendency to assign state farms to all kinds of institutions, factories, enterprises, etc. 

This period, which ended by 1922, led to the fact that by this time period we had 6347 state farm units throughout the Union. This number of state farms had at their disposal a land area of 3391 thousand dessiatines. Then, since the introduction of the NEP, since a self‐supporting element began to be introduced into the management of the economy, the ownership of state farms became unprofitable for a number of enterprises that, during the period of famine and war communism, attributed these state farms and took them at their disposal. As a result, the number of state farms began to decline, part of the state farms, the smallest, began to be transferred to peasants, then, in a self‐supporting manner, many enterprises began to abandon state farms. and as a result, the number of state farms by the year 24‐25 turned out to be 5,700 units with a land area of 3,125 thousand dessiatines. During the period of war communism2, in the period before the new era, to the land authorities and sugar trusts 3, i.e., institutions that are directly or indirectly related to agriculture owned 49% of the total state farm area and state farms, while all other organizations not related to agriculture owned 50.7%. Now, in the 24‐25th year, the attitude has changed somewhat, it is now like this: the gubernatorial authorities, zemorgans and sugar trusts own 63%, 34% belongs to all other organizations, the attitude has changed in the opposite direction. If we ask how many state farms belong exclusively to zem‐ organs, then out of those state farms that we have, land bodies own only 44.5%. So, when they talk about state farms and usually think that they are talking about the activities and policies of land bodies, this is deeply mistaken. When it comes to state farms, then we must bear in mind a number of other organizations,

Now I will dwell on the following points that determine the state of the state farm economy and those economic prospects associated with state farms. These elements are the state of the state farmʹs fixed and working capital. The condition of the fixed capital is determined by the following figures. In the 22nd‐23rd year the fixed capital, i.e., buildings, dead and living equipment and traction force, amounted to an overall estimate of 109 million rubles. (without land). Now, according to the same estimate for the 24‐25th year, this fixed capital amounts to 129 million, ie. we have an increase of about 20 million. At the same time, buildings have increased in the estimate by 1 million rubles., dead inventory and living ‐ by 9.5 million rubles., traction force ‐ by 9.8 million rubles.

Stalin. But now the number of state farms has decreased.

Svidersky. I take on the state farms, which are under the jurisdiction of land authorities and sugar trusts.

Kamenev. Are these numbers comparable?

Svidersky. I did not understand you. We take the 23rd and 24th years to the same area in comparison with the 22‐23rd year, when the state farms were cleaned up, and the 24‐25th year. As if there is a slight difference, it is so negligible that it can be ignored.

Here the most energetic cleansing took place in the 22‐23rd year, and then the assessment of the fixed capital was made. With regard to fixed capital, the following conclusion can be made that state farms are currently provided with fixed capital in this form. The provision with buildings is expressed in the amount from 52 to 95% for certain types of state farms. At the same time, 53% of the provision with buildings belongs to the state farms of Sukharotrest in Ukraine 4, 80% of the provision of state farms of the RSFSR and 95% of the provision of buildings belongs to the state farms of Belarus. For some types of state farms, provision would be formally higher, but at the same time it is necessary to take into account the fact that there are a significant number of buildings that are not suitable for the economy, i.e., those that cannot be used for the economic needs of state farms. There are a large number of palace‐type buildings that were needed by landowners, but not needed by state farms. If we take into account unsuitable buildings, then for various types of state farms, the provision with buildings will be expressed precisely in these figures ‐ from 53 to 95%.

Now regarding the supply of dead inventory. This provision is expressed in numbers from 75 to 95%. The provision with live inventory is expressed from 25 to 48%. Here we have much less security than the provision of dead inventory and buildings. Rykov. What is the provision with live inventory? Svidersky. The provision with live inventory from 25 to 48%.

Provision with traction force ranges from 23 to 48%. At the same time, the provision of traction power increased during the 24‐25th year by 75%. This is within one year. It is explained by the fact that it was a shock task. This includes tractors. If we take separately the amount of tractor power, then over the year this amount increased by 226%. This is quite understandable, because at that time we began to register tractors that were supplied to state farms. This is the position of the question of the fixed capital of state farms.

Now letʹs move on to working capital. Interdepartmental Commission, which started work in the 23‐24‐year 5, determines the next thing on 1 acres of land in order to properly run the economy, you need to have wrought capital in the amount of ... * (* The document otsutsutstvuet figure.) What do we have in relation to the provision of working capital at the present time? Trusted state farms of the RSFSR are provided with 13.4% of this norm. Ukrainian trusted state farms are provided with 37% of this norm; Belarusian ‐ in the amount of 46%. And only state farms under the jurisdiction of Gossemkultura 6, 75% of this rate is provided. On the basis of these data, one can judge about working capital that the main factors that determine the economic state of state farms and make it possible to build a plan for the future, these basic elements are in the red and in a big deficiency. In recent years, these shortcomings have begun to weaken in two ways, in two directions: dead inventory and traction force, with the greatest increase observed in the area of traction force.

Since there is an increase in fixed capital in at least two types: in dead inventory and in tractive power, an increase in sown areas begins to occur in state farms. The sown area in 23‐24 was 602 thousand dessiatines (I take it in round numbers), and in this reporting year the sown area is 768 thousand dessiatines. Here such a question may arise. We say that the entire land area is determined by us in the amount of over 3 million dessiatines, where do the rest go? Here we take the figures concerning the trusted state farms of the State Semkultura, but we do not take the state farms assigned to institutions and organizations to the State Spiritual Fund 7, and we do not take those state farms that are on the local budget. They are out of our sight. All these land areas are excluded. Then, areas that are inconvenient and under steam are eliminated.

It must be said that simultaneously with the growth of the sown area, there is also an increase in the amount of land cultivated by the state farms on their own. This is expressed in the following figures: in the RSFSR in the 23‐24th year, the state farms cultivated 60%, in the 25th year ‐ 75%; in Ukraine ... (reads) * (* The text read by Svidersky is missing in the uncorrected transcript.).

Simultaneously with the increase in the amount of land cultivated by the state farms with their own funds, there is a decline in rent and sharecropping, 8 i.e., those forms of land use that must be condemned and against which we must fight. This change happens this way. These figures can be disputed with regard to their absolute accuracy, but the trends are clearly outlined correctly. Leased in the 24th year 6.7%, in the 24‐25th year the amount of land leased by state farms is reduced to ... (reads) * (* There is no figure in the transcript.) Sharecropping for the same years ‐ the following numbers: 14, 3; 7, 9, according to the plan for the 26th year ‐ 2.4%.

This is the change that we are seeing in the area of land use. That is, we have an increase in the amount of land cultivated by state farms, and a decrease in the amount of land leased, as well as a decrease in sharecropping. These changes are directly dependent on the increase in the tractive power of the state farms, as well as on the decisions that were adopted by the government last year, when the state farms were first given funds to increase their fixed capital, and for the first time a loan of 4 million rubles was issued. 9 Under these conditions, the state farms were able to raise more land. Simultaneously with the increase in the land area cultivated by the state farmsʹ own forces, there is a qualitative change, a change for the better. This is as follows. The amount of land under purebred crops is increasing. The increase is observed from 31.4% to 93.8%. The correct crop rotation, multi‐field is established. The multi‐field in state farms, trusted by the RSFSR, reaches 78%, and only in more than 20% there is a three‐regiment. In Belarus, this percentage reaches 95 and only 5% remains under the three‐shelf. So here we are seeing a definite qualitative improvement. At the same time, the following is observed that the technical methods of better management, which we recommend to the peasantry, have now received full citizenship rights in relation to state farms. Early fallow, winter plowing10 are used in 80% of all cultivated land. Along with the qualitative improvement, the production of livestock is also increasing, there is an increase in milk yield, as well as an increase in the demand for 11 of our state stud farms, which was a sore spot in our country and which was a sore spot in the former tsarist state factories. I will not give specific figures here, the statement is enough, but if these figures are needed, I will show them. Further, comrades, it is necessary to dwell on one question, that of technical enterprises. You know that in a number of institutions we have sought to ensure that auxiliary technical enterprises that once belonged to the landownersʹ estates, and then were taken away by a part of the Supreme Council of the National Economy 12, partly by local authorities, must eventually be returned to the state farms, since they are an organic part of the state farms.

In 1923‐24, such enterprises were assigned to state farms, I do not take all state farms, but only those state farms that are united in the Gosselsyndikate 13, and here a smaller number of state farms are united, it was assigned in the RSFSR, Ukraine and Belarus to 570 state farms. Of these 570 state farms, only 450 enterprises worked on ʺlandʺ on their own, i.e., 8%, the rest they had to surrender, because they did not have their own funds, or these enterprises were not put into operation. In 1924‐25, there were already 959 state farms with technical enterprises assigned to them, of which 96% were cultivated on their own by trusted state farms, and only 4% were leased. Simultaneously with the increase in the number of technical enterprises assigned to state farms, the following phenomenon appears that in state farms they begin to play an ever‐greater role, since incomes from these enterprises increase the income part of state farms. state farms are becoming healthier and able to raise all the land that is attributed to them and play a cultural role, because they have more resources. All this could not but affect the profitability of state farms. If until now it was believed that state farms are not profitable at all, that they cannot be profitable, and this opinion was so ingrained that Comrade. Smilga turned through me with a request to transfer some state farm under his jurisdiction, to make an experiment, whether there could be a state farm at all as an agricultural farm. the company is profitable or unprofitable, which, having experience and skill, as well as the possibility of lending ...

Rykov. Lending opportunity?

Svidersky. Yes, with the possibility of crediting, he would be able to deliver this experience and prove whether a state farm can be profitable or unprofitable. For him, it was a problem that can only be resolved in this way. In this regard, a resolution was passed, he did not receive the state farm, and his experiment was not performed. But the experience that Comrade. Smilga and which he could not do, we did. And this is what we now have. In 1922/23, losses on all state farms in the RSFSR amounted to 550 thousand rubles, to put it bluntly, and 5 out of 33 seltrests were profitable (I take provincial associations); 8 gubernial seltrests were without profit or loss, and all the rest were unprofitable. In total, we found that 27 seltrests were unprofitable. In 1923‐24, the loss increased to one million rubles, but the number of profitable seltrests increased to 10. If in 1922‐23

Trotsky. Due to the previous crop failure.

Svidersky. Yes. In 1924‐25, a great turning point should take place in the direction of increasing the profitability of state farms. I cannot present general figures, because this operation has not yet been completed with us, but there are indirect data that give the correct picture, in my opinion. The Samara Gubernia Seltrest in 1923/24 gave a loss of 127 thousand, and in 1924/25 it gave a profit already in 42 thousand rubles, the Omsk Guberniya Seltrest, which gave a profit of 39 thousand in 1923/24, in 1924/25 G. increased its profit to 175 thousand rubles. Ukrainian state farms became profitable earlier than our state farms.

Kalinin. Thanks mainly to Sugarotrest?

Svidersky. But there Sakharotrest goes along a different line, and I am talking about trusted state farms that go along the NKZem line.

Trotsky. But do they grow beets?

Svidersky. Yes, but only some of them since some of the farms are assigned to Sakharotrest. The Ukrainian state farms in 1923‐24 yielded a profit of 140 thousand, and in 1924/25 already 750 thousand. Belarusian state farms gave a profit of 78 thousand in 1923‐24, and 333 thousand in 1924/25. Georgia gave a loss (there they are called national economies), we do not have exact information about this loss, about its size, but having given a loss in 1923‐24, in 1924‐25 they gave 28 thousand rubles. income.

Rykov. So, only the state farms of the RSFSR remained unprofitable?

Svidersky. Some of the seltrests of the RSFSR remained unprofitable.

Trotsky. And if we take the general balance of state farms of the RSFSR, then in general there will be a profit?

Svidersky. I cannot give this information, I can only draw a picture of the state of individual seltrests that have increased their profitability, but we believe that unprofitability should be either completely eliminated or eliminated to a large extent, because in 1924/25 we received an increase fixed capital ‐ 4 million credit known to you, and this could not but affect the state of the state farms 14... Dwelling on labor issues, which play a large role, even a decisive role in the work of state farms, I must say that before the NEP there were a lot of workers and employees who were permanently assigned to state farms, and this cadre, the so‐called permanent workers and employees, crushed a colossal overhead costs for state farms. When we switched to proper management of the economy, our task was to reduce the permanent cadre of workers and employees, under modern conditions it is more profitable for us to build farms by attracting seasonal and day laborers. Thanks to this policy, we have reduced the permanent workforce of workers and employees from 10 to 25%. In this regard, as well as with the opportunities that were in connection with the increase in the general level of wages, we managed to increase the average wages for workers of state farms. In 1923‐24, it was 6‐7 rubles in the 1st category,

Ancelovich. On average, 20‐21 rubles, and in the first category, the salary is only 8‐9 rubles.

Svidersky. What is the difference between the wages received by a state farm worker, a farm laborer, and a shepherd employed by a rural society? A worker on a state farm receives 27.3 rubles, a farm laborer in the same locality, working on a peasant farm, receives 16 rubles, a shepherd who works in the same locality and is hired by a rural society, receives 20 rubles. This is the difference in wages by a state farm, a peasant in a separate farm, and a rural society. At the same time, on a state farm, a worker usually works 8 hours, and only in certain periods do we allow, in agreement with Vserabotzemles 15, an increase in the working day.

Rykov. Including wages in kind?

Svidersky. There is now no payment in kind, it has been reduced to a minimum. The survey that we carried out concerned those state farms where there is no payment in kind.

Rykov. And the dwelling?

Svidersky. Housing is provided, but not included.

Now labor productivity. Labor productivity increases markedly. Although RCT 16 will dispute this in its report, I cannot give data now. It seems to me that the information is correct, this is a survey carried out by the State Syndicate 17... Recent changes in labor productivity are as follows, this includes the cost of plowing and harrowing, and sowing. In 23rd year, all three points ‐ they required about 4.2 working days per tithe. Now, in the 24th year, it took 3.5 working days, in the 25th year, it took 3.2 workers. day. If you take the 23rd year as a hundred, then the 24th year will give 120% and the 25th year will give 131%. What was the norm under the landlords? Vserabotzemles dealt with this issue. He established by commission that the productivity of the old days in general, i.e., normal production should be recognized as such: plowing, harrowing, and sowing ‐ should cost 2.78 slaves. day. In the 24th year it costs 3.2 slaves. day. Thus, according to these data, labor productivity reached the norm to 78.5%. Apparently, next year we will have normal labor productivity of state farms,

Now, what is the relationship between state farms and peasant farms. First of all, the yield is higher on state farms than on peasant farms. As a general rule, in relation to grain crops and root crops, the yield in Soviet farms is much higher than in peasant farms, about 30% more for certain types. Likewise, the yield of peasant fields, which give 80% on average, is 30% higher on state farms.

The gross output per worker on state farms is approximately equal to 4.3 of the gross output per worker on the peasant farm. The wages earned by one worker on a state farm is approximately twice as high as the total nominally net income falling per worker on a peasant farm, and three times higher than the nominally net income falling per worker on a peasant farm. The gross output from one tithe on a state farm is approximately one and a half times higher than the gross output per one tithe of a peasant farm. Exactly the same observation of gross production is taking place in relation to head of cattle, which is approximately 3‐4 times higher on state farms than on peasant farms.

What do state farms give the peasants? In 1924 the state farms sold 2000 heads of the best cattle to the peasants, in 25 they sold 3600 heads, much more, as you can see. Ukrainian trusts gave 304 heads to the peasants in 1924, there is a smaller area of land at state farms, most of it is located at Sukharotrest. In the 25th year, the Ukrainian state farms gave 689 heads, 2 times more, in Belarus ‐ 108 heads were sold to peasants there in the 24th year, in the 25th year ‐ 463 heads. Pigs ‐ 11 544 pieces, this state farms Ukrainian, Belarus in the 24th year of pigs sold 20,370 * (* The text is reproduced on the unreduced transcript Apparently, then missed the word ʺunitsʺ and the number of sold animals for the RSFSR cattle..), Head of RSFSR, in Ukraine ‐ 3000 heads, in Belarus ‐ 490 and 500 * (* So in the text of the uncorrected transcript.) ... In a word, the presentation of the best cattle, the best breed of pigs by the state farms in this respect has been made a step forward in this respect, the trusted state farms have doubled their production. Interesting data characterizing the degree of influence of state farms on farms of peasants in relation to seeds. In 1924, 5016 poods of the best seeds were sold by the trusted state farms of the RSFSR to peasants, and in 25 ‐ 4 million poods, an increase of more than 8 times. It should be added that in 1923 there were 689 breeding stations and grain cleaners in the trusted state farms of the RSFSR. Agricultural enterprises, with the task of influencing the peasant economy, in the 24th year of such organizations in the state farms were 1379 points. At the same time, in addition to the material impact on the peasant economy, in the forms that we had, there is an impact in another direction, in the sense of organizing lectures, conversations, etc. In 1924, 7200 lectures were held on trusted state farms, Soviet trusts are launching a large campaign in this regard, there were 8000 such lectures throughout the system in 1925. In addition to the material impact on peasant farms, there is widespread agricultural propaganda.

Agricultural propaganda for state farms is not a commercially profitable enterprise. This work is very unprofitable.

Trotsky. Why?

Svidersky. Why, I’ll tell you, but we must take measures so that the state farms carry out this work, for example, the stallion is determined by its cost price of 700 rubles, and the selling price on the average of the trusteered state farms is 230‐300 rubles, peasants cannot buy for 700‐800, and to buy, the price must be lowered, and the state farms release the stallions for 200‐300 rubles.

Voice. Why so expensive?

Svidersky. Why is it expensive, I will not be able to answer here, I take a certificate, but this certificate does not exaggerate, it is about the same cost as it was in the old days. Now the bulls are two‐yearold breeding, their cost is 425 rubles, the selling price is 250 rubles, then mating costs 8‐15 rubles. in different regions, and state farms take 3 rubles. Breeding mating costs 3‐4 rubles. Trusted trusts * (* So in the document. Probably state farms.) Take 3 rubles. And this agricultural work, it is not work that can be commercially viable, it is profitable from a historical perspective in the sense of the development of farms, and we insist that the state farms carry it out, but in carrying out it, the state farms have a loss that must be compensated from other sources. Now I will focus on one point that I have released.

Stalin. The attitude of the peasants to the state farms?

Svidersky. I will talk about the peasants, but we can say definitely ‐ it is negative, there in all those areas where there were landlord farms, the attitude of the peasants is negative, even in those cases when the state farms give income, if they have an agricultural value, the peasants answer: “If If we were given this money, then we would have produced more breeding material, and the land would give more income. ʺ

In those areas where there were no landownersʹ farms, there, on the contrary, the attitude towards state farms is not negative.

Rykov. With sympathy.

Svidersky. ... and even with sympathy, there are resolutions on the formation of state farms. We have such resolutions (Comrade L. will probably confirm) 18.

L. In the Stalingrad province., Orenburg, etc.

Svidersky. There is a resolution to open state farms because they are thought of as breeding points, which are not there or are very few. In those areas where there are landlord farms, there are remnants of the past in relation to the state farms.

Voice. Hate remained?

Svidersky. And hatred, it falls on the past, and most of all, land shortages. According to the correspondence that we have, the greatest irritation in relation to the state farms falls on the Kursk, Orel, and in general on the Central Black Earth Region, where agrarian overpopulation has remained and where land shortages are yielding results.

Rykov. Is this where they need it more?

Svidersky. Yes, where they need it most. I wonder what role the state farms play in cooperative construction. Rykov (chairman). You have two minutes left.

vidersky. Two minutes, I’ll say a little then. Wherever correct state

farms have been established, corresponding cooperative organizations develop around the state farms. Where state cultural state farms are built, seed partnerships grow there. Where there are pedigree state farms, corresponding partnerships for ... livestock grow there * (* So in the document.). State farms are not only cultural breeding grounds, but also such points from which agricultural assistance comes, and a number of cooperative organizations arise around such assistance.

The general conclusions are as follows. We are witnessing a general upsurge in the growth of state farms and reconstruction, and in this regard, state farms should be given great attention, since in this case they must take first place in the field of socialist construction. They should be cost‐effective, exemplary, and cultural centers that supply the population with seed, establish breeding centers and be a cultural breeding ground.

The state farms do not have enough capital, no working capital, no credit. How much there is no credit, you know from the SNK practice. Until now, the Central Agricultural Bank 19 believes that the state farms are such an evil spirits that they do not need to be supplied with credit.

Voice. Who counts it?

Svidersky. This policy is pursued by Smilga, and no one can overcome this policy.

Voice. (the replica is not caught).

Svidersky. Alexander Petrovich 20 does not pursue this policy, but you and Smilga are pursuing it. In the credit system of the Central agricultural. bank should be introduced lending to state farms. State farms need a loan, some tax breaks, etc. It is necessary to establish a clear organizational plan for building state farms.

Stalin. Are there tractors? Their role?

Svidersky. There are tractors, their role is colossal both in terms of raising the area that they have and in terms of serving the surrounding population.

Voice. But the trouble is that tractors are not provided.

Svidersky. But the trouble is that when they talk about state farms, they think that state farms should not get an advantage over the peasants.

Trotsky. It is said 25% of the tractive force, should this be understood as tractors?

Svidersky. Over the past year, the pulling force can be considered to have increased by 76%. If we single out the growth of tractors from the growth of tractive power, then it quantitatively increased by ...% * (* So in the uncorrected transcript. Probably, the text was not heard by the transcript.).

Trotsky. What is the percentage of the total pulling force? There seems to be a different number in the report 21. It seems to me that 25% cannot be called insignificant, it is one quarter.

Svidersky. There is an increase in labor productivity, and organizational measures are on the order of the day. Of this, the following should be distinguished. The organizational structure, which is carried out by the creation ... * (* So in the text) was justified and is carried out as follows: state farms, gubernial seltrest ... * (* So in the text) as unifying. We believe that state farms should be more connected with land authorities. Those state farms that are outside the influence of the land authorities must be directly or indirectly subordinate to them. Only in this case, the policy will be carried out correctly, for the directives that are given are directed at state farms belonging to the land authorities, and do not cover a huge number of state farms, those that are outside the influence of land authorities. On this occasion, there were many decisions, they need to be confirmed in order for them to be implemented. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the general plan for the restoration of state farms, which are called * (* So in the text) a five‐year plan, is already outdated, so that one of the main elements in it is a planned decree of state farms ...

Voice. And the staff?

Svidersky. We managed to improve their qualifications somewhat, but even now up to 60% of heads of state farms have not received an education. These are either people without any education, or with primary education. Higher education has been strengthened recently, but nevertheless we have brought the heads of state farms with higher education to only 9%.

Kalinin. Is it important whether there are agronomists? If the head is not an agronomist, but an assistant agronomist, thatʹs not bad.

Svidersky. There are many such combinations. The trouble is that as soon as the worker shows up at the state farm work, he is immediately thrown over.

Rykov. Who!

Svidersky. Party organizations.

Stalin. Are the non‐partisans being transferred?

Svidersky. Non‐party people sit up, but non‐party people are imprisoned * (* So in the text).

Stalin. Are there many party agronomists?

Svidersky. Now there are a lot of party agronomists. Just recently, 22 Central Committees were assigned, but, unfortunately, they want to work in Moscow and no one wants to go somewhere to the point. 160 people were distributed. Hereʹs an example of how to reroll. In the Tatar Republic (this is a provincial scale), out of 14 managers there, only one survived a year, the rest were transferred up to a year.

Kalinin. They learn to distinguish a tractor from a horse in the state farm itself.

Svidersky. The general conclusion is expressed in the resolution that was handed out, and I think the following, although the Central Committee, Politburo, Organizational Bureau, etc. adopted a number of resolutions on paying more attention to state farms, but they did not produce results, and it must be said to the party that state farms are not a bad disease that must be fought, but are one of the bases of socialist construction. We do not have such a consciousness.

Hereʹs what I wanted to say about the state farms. Now I have collective farms. My time is up.

Rykov (chairman). You had 30 minutes. I personally increased the time for you to 44 minutes. both state farms and collective farms. So, it was agreed.

Trotsky. I think that it would be more expedient not to present what was written in the report. After all, we have read it all, [it is all there]. And it would be better to include a written report in the transcript, which is completer and more accurate, and write only new, practical material, additions illustrating the report, but not what has already been sent out and what everyone has read.

Rykov. Comrade Kaminsky, how much time do you need?

Kaminsky * (* The text of the speech was edited by the author, the revision has a stylistic character. Published according to the reprinted text.). 20 minutes.

The collective movement can be subdivided in its development into two main stages: before the introduction of the new economic policy and after its introduction. The first period was characterized by a rather rapid development of the collective farm movement, and, moreover, mainly in the highest forms ‐ communes; to a lesser extent, artels and partnerships for public plowing of land developed. In the first period, the social composition of the collective farms was mixed: along with peasants, we also had people from the city, mostly workers, and partly the intelligentsia. The attitude of the peasantry to the collective‐farm movement during this period was unquestionably hostile in the mass. With the introduction of the new economic policy, the collective farm movement began, as it were, to die down and disintegrate. A particularly strong disintegration of collective farms was observed in Siberia and the North Caucasus, to a lesser extent it took place in the Ukraine. On the whole, the first period of the NEP was characterized by an undoubted disintegration of the collective movement. Since the introduction of the new economic policy, the forms of the collective movement began to change. The predominant form of collective farming became a machine partnership and an artel for joint cultivation of the land. As for the communes, it should be noted, along with a sharp slowdown in their growth, a tendency to simplify their structure and bring them closer to the type of artel. I will not give numerical data, because they are available in a written report along with a sharp slowdown in their growth, a tendency towards simplification of their structure and their approach to the type of artel. I will not give numerical data, because they are available in a written report 23, and I will try to dwell only on the most pressing and essential issues that have become in full swing in collective farm construction.

However, with regard to the data presented in this report, I must make a few reservations. It seems to me that these data are not entirely accurate. Here are also the data of the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Finance, which refers to collective farms often forms of farms that do not correspond to this name, such as simply village associations and a number of other forms.

Stalin. There is a special organ where there is a count of 24.

Kaminsky. Yes, there is a count, but we do not consider it to be completely accurate. For correct calculation, one must have a good statistical apparatus and sufficient funds for its organization. We have neither the one nor the other yet. CSB 25very little does this business. Only recently did we manage to come to an agreement with the Central Statistical Board, so that when examining the budget of peasant farms, it would also examine collective farms, which has not been done until now. In addition to the data of the NKF, the data of the Peopleʹs Commissariat of Agriculture are given, which, in general, coincide with our data and are based on registration. Recently we have carried out a sample survey of collective farms. The data from this survey can be considered generally correct. On the question of the number of collective farms, the general data indicate 22,000 organizations, we considered it best, however, to take a smaller figure would be more correct; We believe that there are 20‐21 thousand collective farms throughout the Soviet Union, 16347 collective farms in the RSFSR, and 5578 in Ukraine.

Stalin. How many families are covered by collective farms?

Kaminsky. There are about 1 million eaters; in relation to the entire peasantry, this percentage is very insignificant. In no case should you get carried away here.

Kosior. Is it 1 million farms?

Kaminsky. No, I have already said that this number of eaters and farms is much smaller.

Beginning in 1923 we have seen an undoubted rise in the collective farm movement. In 1924, due to famine and crop failure, the movement intensified even more; its spontaneous growth began, supported mainly by the poor population. The year 1924 was characterized by a massive revival of collective farm activity. The external expression of the revival of the collective farm movement was the period of collective farm congresses that took place in a number of provinces. In February 1925, the All‐Union Congress of Collective Farms was held 26... It was a very interesting congress, at which the shortcomings of the past were revealed and new tasks of the collective farm movement were outlined. The decisions of this congress formed the basis for all practical measures to improve the health of the collective farm movement in recent years. This congress revealed, in particular, the lack of clarity on the question of the ways of collectivizing peasant farms. The collective farmers naturally overestimated the role of collective farms and underestimated the tasks and significance of agricultural production. cooperation as a form of movement of the countryside towards socialism. They managed to come to an agreement that collective‐farm construction is only a part of agricultural production. cooperation and one of the channels of the cooperative movement. At this congress, the immediate tasks of the collective farms were specified.

The most important decision must be considered the orientation of collective farm development towards the simplest mass forms of collectives. Such forms are artels and partnerships 27; experience shows that these forms of collective farms are used by both the poor and middle peasants (the latter is mainly in the partnership). As for the communes, these are predominantly poor associations, 80% of them are poor people. At the same time, a decision was made, it is being implemented, not to conserve the simplest forms of collective farms, but, on the contrary, to promote their gradual transition to higher forms of associations. Since 1924, the movement seems to have stabilized in its highest forms (communes) and noticeably develops along the line of the simplest forms. The sample survey figures we have attested to the process of improving collective farms, and the improvement is proceeding along the main line — the organization of labor. Labor organization issues,

At this congress, we organized the All‐Union Council of Collective Farms, 28 since the council also included representatives of Ukraine and other republics.

Stalin. Under Selskosoyuz 29?

Kaminsky. Formally under the Selskosoyuz, it is actually an independent body elected at the congress. I will talk about this further. At this congress and then at sessions of the council, the question of the organization of labor was one of the main subjects of discussion. Recently, in a number of collective farms, including in communes, a transition has begun to such an organization of labor that is approaching the factory type, i.e., to individual wages with a grid system, etc. In this respect, an extremely interesting experience was made by the well‐known Krasivo‐Mechenskoye partnership of the Tula province 30.

Trotsky. In the Ukraine and the North Caucasus, they also crossed over.

Kaminsky. Yes, we did. This transition has an eminently healing effect. It is especially strong in communes, where the lack of personal interest in raising labor productivity was one of the decisive reasons for their destruction. At present, in connection with the improvement of the internal organization, the communes have grown stronger, and the attitude of the local population towards them has changed significantly. Now the local population goes to communes, learns from them, the communes have schools, medical centers, etc.; communes help the local population with tractors, livestock of improved breeds, etc. So, in this respect we have a clear improvement, the local population has begun to relate much better to the communes. It can be said without exaggeration that communes are gradually becoming genuine large agricultural enterprises. production. And in the last session we put the question like this, that communes should be treated precisely as large enterprises, both in relation to the organization of labor in them, and in relation to all other aspects of their organization. It seems to me that it is in no way possible to take a line on the rapid expansion of communes in the sense of increasing the membership. I think the communes should be allowed at the present time to be somewhat insular as they get stronger. Because the fluidity of the composition, which has been observed so far in the communes, is one of the main reasons for their disorganization. We support the demand of the collective farms that a certain degree of isolation be established so that when they rise and become stronger, new strata of the population could be drawn into their composition.

Summing up, I must say that at the present time a number of communes are gradually beginning to become large latifundia, 31 large agricultural communities. enterprises.

Stalin. With hired labor?

Kaminsky. There is also hired labor. Now I cannot give you exact data on hired labor, but I can nevertheless say with confidence that hired labor is an insignificant amount. When there is a shortage of labor, communes do not take the path of increasing wage workers, but the path of attracting new members. The question of improving the organization of labor is relevant not only for communes, but also for associations and artels; and in these associations there is a transition to individual wages. Despite the undoubtedly positive significance of this transition, there is also a certain threat to the development of social accumulation. The whole point is to correctly combine the personal interests of the members with the strengthening and development of the collective principle in the economy. In this respect, we observe a wide variety of relationships within collective farms, mainly determined by the degree of collectivization of the economy. In some collective farms, old people and children are kept at the same expense ...

Stalin. How is Lipaevsky collective farm?

Kaminsky. Growing. This is exactly the Krasivo‐Mechenskoe partnership. This is a large and very interesting artel, in the sense that it immediately embraced rather large masses of the population and gradually increases the number of its members. But everything ultimately depends on the terms of the loan. The Artel is going through a difficult financial situation. We had to push hard to help her. Rosselbank 32 did something, helped, and it was as if the Lipaevskoe partnership had coped with the most acute difficulties.

Voice. How much did they get?

Kaminsky. All his debt is, it seems, 60 thousand rubles.

The question of the rationalization of labor is inextricably linked with the question of streamlining the internal life in collective farms. This, by the way, is the spite of the day in the life of collective farms. On collective farms there are frequent contentions, frictions, squabbles. They take place mainly on economic grounds and are quickly eliminated as labor conditions and pay are rationalized and relations within collective farms are simplified. Where collective farms are growing economically and there is a strong leadership nucleus, these internal diseases of the collective farms are quickly eliminated. As regards the leading core of collective farms, it should be said that in most cases it is composed of party comrades, as well as former military comrades. In the North Caucasus, these are mostly former Budenovites 33... If war breaks out, the collective farms will find themselves in immediate danger of disintegration, because the main leading group are former military workers, Budenovites, who are most devoted to the cause to the last degree.

Rykov. Will they fall apart because they will be part of the Red Army?

Kaminsky. Yes, these are former soldiers, Budenovites, who will go to the Red Army. The same is observed in Siberia, where the former partisans are the main nucleus. As for the total composition of the members of the collective farms, it is currently 90% peasant. The increase in members is at the expense of the local peasantry. In this respect, we can definitely say that the attitude of the local population towards collective farms has improved, the composition of associations and artels is changing in the direction of an increase in the number of peasants in them. As the work and life of collective farms improves, their material condition also rises. They are turning from consumer farms into commodity farms. An interesting phenomenon is noticed in this area. In a number of regions, there is a gradual specialization in the economic activity of collective farms, there are collective farms with a seed‐growing bias, a livestockraising bias,

What organizational forms of collective farm development should be considered the most rational and deserving of special attention? It seems to us that we should develop all forms, from the simplest to the most complex. Of course, the simplest forms of collectives have the greatest mass significance; However, one should not relax attention to higher forms either. For the poor, they may be the main forms of organization. All the workers of the collective farms insist on this, and when at the congress of collective farms someone says something bad about the commune, this causes great indignation. All forms of collective farm movement must be supported. The most important thing is that the collective farmers themselves keep a course towards the most massive forms of organizing the artel. Most of them will be partnerships and artels, but in many cases, for certain groups of the population, communes can also be such mass forms. It is also necessary to develop preparatory, auxiliary forms of collectivization: machine, land reclamation partnerships, etc. Recently, the question of the forms of organization of the movement itself has become extremely timely. My time is up, I have to ask for another 10 min.

Rykov. Comrade Kaminsky asks for 10 minutes. No objections?

Kaminsky. How to organize the leadership of the collective farm movement? What organizational relationships should be established between collective farms and other types of agricultural? cooperation? The specific question is whether collective farms should enter into general unions and centers of agricultural production. cooperatives or can they have their own special unions? Until now, we have solved the problem in such a way that they should enter into general unions, however, forming independent sections with them.

In our country, with every union, including the Selskosoyuz, the organization of a special section of collective farms is allowed. However, not all collective farm workers are satisfied with this situation, and many of them continue to insist on organizing special unions not only for organizational, but also for economic service of collective farms. We consider the latter type of service to the collective farms to be incorrect in terms of marketing, credit, supply, and organization of production. Is it possible to assume that these tasks will be better fulfilled by the universal collective farm unions than by the general agricultural unions developing along the line of specialization? cooperation?

And on the other hand, is it possible to put the question in such a way that the collective farms organize their own potato union, their own dairy union, their own credit union, etc. This formulation of the question is sufficient to make sure that it is completely impossible to resolve the question of rational economic services to collective farms outside the existing associations of agricultural enterprises. cooperation. Since the collective farms have their own special tasks, they can form special sections under general unions; they can also create non‐trade associations for organizational service of their needs and representation of their interests in the form of councils, collective farms, bureaus, congresses, etc.

We admit, however, the existence of special associations of collective farms of a production type, such as the organization of a tractor base for a whole group of collective farms, this is a cluster association, which constitutes a common base for the supply of fuel, spare parts, and repair shops.

Such bases of cluster associations serve to service one or two dozen collective farms in a given area. They may have two or three agronomists for their service.

But we do not see any need for organizing special union associations of collective farms in the area of sales, supply, credit, and production.

Trotsky. Is there any organization in the center now?

Kaminsky. Yes, there is a Council of Collective Farms in the center, it is in charge of the ideological and organizational leadership. This is, so to speak, the governing body of the collective farms.

Stalin. But does he know and account?

Kaminsky. Yes, he has a statistical and accounting apparatus.

Trotsky. Is he at NKZem?

Kaminsky. No, under the Selskosoyuz. NKZem concentrates only the registration of statutes.

Separate the collective farms from the production and marketing associations of agricultural cooperation means going backward, not forward. If we now organized on the ground unions of collective farms and the All‐Russian Union of Collective Farms with operational functions, then this would be nothing but a repetition in the worst form of the experience of serving agricultural enterprises. cooperation through universal organizations, an experience condemned by the entire history of the cooperative movement. Currently, there are 23 special collective farm unions, their experience also warns against organizing such unions.

Organizing them would mean not a step forward, but a step back, because collective farms are developing in the direction of specialization, they are taking seed, livestock, and other directions, etc. and together with the entire system of s.‐kh. they need cooperation for their service in special organizations, and not in universal associations. On this issue, some comrades will object and defend the independence of the collective farms, etc., but this is more of an initiative in words, because despite the fact that we recently passed a resolution at a session of the Council of Collective Farms on the deduction of 10 kopecks from each tithe of collective farms for the maintenance of the Council of Collective Farms, it turned out that they had not yet contributed a penny, and in the collective farms there are up to 3 million dessiatines.

Trotsky. Collective farms have about 2 million dessiatines.

Kaminsky. I may be wrong, Comrade Trotsky, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the figure, at least about 3 million.

Trotsky. Maybe Iʹm wrong, I have this information somewhere.

Kaminsky. When we passed a resolution on the financing of the Council, it happened that they did not give us a dime, the collective farms still have very little material self‐activity. There is a lot of activity there, I would say political activity. The most advanced revolutionary elements of the countryside gathered on the collective farms. These are the layers that are closest to us, I am confident in these layers, in their support. But they are still too weak to exist divorced from agricultural affairs. cooperation. They still lack the strength and resources for this. Meanwhile, the idea of creating special unions of collective farms has been advanced and supported by a significant group of collective farm workers.

Trotsky. Union as economic bodies or governing bodies?

Kaminsky. Some also insist on economic functions. This is insisted, for example, by Comrade. Krutoshinsky, who will present his point of view here. I believe that this should be resolutely disputed and the expedient forms of merging collective farms should be firmly determined. It seems to me that we should strive to create councils and sections of collective farms without operational functions. It must be added that it would be dangerous to isolate the collective farms politically from the general system.

Stalin. For whom is it dangerous?

Kaminsky. For us since this would mean leaving the production and marketing systems of agricultural products. cooperation of the most revolutionary elements. A final note on lending to collective farms. In this respect, the situation is as bad as possible. If Comrade. Svidersky complains about SKhBank at a time when Rosselbank is right in his pocket, then what do we have to say? We have no support from this side. Meanwhile, the collective farm movement has entered a stage of development when it cannot develop without credit. If at first the collective farms could still feed on the inheritance of landlord estates, now there are no more such sources. The question of strengthening and rationalizing lending to collective farms is therefore one of the most important questions, and I hope that the Politburo will give absolutely precise directives on this question.

Trotsky. I have a comment about tables 34. The collective farm movement is united here, but it is not clear on what territory. I cannot figure out ‐ the general figures for the RSFSR or the USSR. What is said about an increase of 23% from a tithe, about 2370 tithes and so on ‐ is it the RSFSR or the USSR? And Ukraine? Itʹs hard to figure it out. I hope that you will clarify, when you have a word, these numbers and determine whatʹs what.

Chairman. Comrade Rosit has the floor.

Rosit. I must note from the outset that the general assessment given by Comrade Svidersky and which, in fact, catches the eye of everyone who is more closely involved in state farms, that is, the general assessment that state farms are still growing, that the sown area is expanding , the harvest is slowly, but improving, that live inventory is being added to the state farms, this general assessment is absolutely indisputable, this is said by our materials, this is also said by the materials of departments. The fact of the growth of state farms is indisputable. There is also an indisputable issue that should be noted and emphasized that our state farms have few loans. We have a decree of the Orgburo of February 9, 1925 on state farms, and in this decree it ʺwas givenʺ as a party directive for government bodies and funding bodies to provide state farms with ʺa permanent renewing loan in the amount of 5 million rubles.35... This decree, this directive has not been implemented. It is equally true that not all technical enterprises located on the territory of state farms have been transferred completely to state farms and in this sense state farms do not have everything that they should have according to the party directive. It is also true that in the area of the labor issue, which Ancelovich will talk about, salaries are delayed in many places. There is such information, and it should be noted. All these facts are very important, and I emphasize them at the very beginning in order to avoid any misunderstandings. But when we note general facts, especially such cardinal issues as the issue of financing state farms, then, dealing with this issue and in this case supporting the state farms and those NKZem organizations that are supposed to lead state farm construction, we should definitely take another side of the matter, take the question of overhead costs in the field of state farm construction. If we have the growth of state farms, this is mainly due to the very favorable situation in recent years for agriculture. The state farm is, after all, a large farm, which has technical advantages over small peasant farms, and given a favorable economic situation, the very fact of the growth of state farms does not yet speak of the deliberately thoughtful leadership of state farm construction on the part of the land agencies and seltrests. But it is precisely in this environment of growth and the lack of credit for state farms that the question of overhead costs and the organizational system governing state farm development becomes of paramount importance.

Here I am forced to state that the rapporteur of the Narkomzem 36 completely bypassed the issue of overhead costs. In his report, he did not devote a single word to this issue.

Voice. He left you (laughter).

Rosit. Then listen to me if this was left for me. On this issue, I will be based on our RCT data, which we received directly. It is necessary to elucidate this issue, because, when we come to the issue of lending and financing of state farms, we considered it necessary to put the second side of the question ‐ about overhead costs, about the system of management of state farm construction at full height, because if the system is bad, then no matter how many credits, they will not be used as appropriately as necessary.

But the question of overhead is a big question. In my presentation, I will be guided by the following three sections. If we take the growing agricultural farms ‐ how are these state farms to be managed, what is the superstructure that should lead this entire big movement in the field of building large agricultural farms? I will dwell on three links above the state farms. Such links are seltrests of the provincial or regional scale. Then we have an all‐union association in the form of the Gosselsyndikat, and, finally, the third is the Peopleʹs Commissariat of Agriculture, which is entrusted by our legislation with the direct management of state farm construction. Iʹll start with the Peopleʹs Commissariat of Agriculture and with the land authorities in general: how did they fulfill their role? We have been building state farms for several years. We have some history on this issue, and this story can take into account the work of the land authorities in terms of assistance to growing state farms. By the decree of the Orgburo on state farms, which was issued at the beginning of the 25th year, and the decree of the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of March 6 of the same year 37 it was said definitely that the land management of the state farms should be completed in 25‐26. In the materials that were presented to the Politburo, it was clearly indicated that the land management of state farms was not completed and that there was no confidence that it would be completed in the current year. According to the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land, 7% are not limited from the surrounding peasant land, and according to the Gosselsyndikat, 22% are not settled. Comrade Svidersky spoke about the relationship between state farms and peasant farms, pointed out that the harvest in state farms is higher, but if we take the political side of the issue, then it seems to me that the unresolved land disputes that should be resolved in the order of land management.

Rykov. Right.

Rosit. And the delay on this issue on the part of the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land, which has in its hands the entire land management apparatus, whose job it was to carry out this work and for which it could in no case be unbearable, we consider it necessary to direct the Narkomzem to blame for the failure to fulfill this task.

He was entrusted with the direct management of state farm construction, and failure to fulfill such a cardinal task, which, along with other sources, feeds peasant discontent, is a big blunder. This means that NKZem and some local zemborgans to a certain extent stand apart from the state farms. And this conclusion, in fact, is not at all accidental, it will be seen from the further presentation.

On the issue of overhead costs, the statistics are very weak. State farm reporting is varied and also weak, despite the overloading of state farms with various reporting requirements. The data that we have in the surveys of the Russian Communist Party of 24‐25 indicate that the overhead costs are incredibly high. The development of these data gives the following picture: for winter rye direct costs ‐ 36%, overheads ‐ 63%, wheat ‐ direct costs 52%, overheads ‐ 47%, for factory beets direct costs ‐ 50.8%, overheads ‐

49.2%, i.e., half and half, and sometimes more overhead half.

Rykov. Is it from the cost?

Rosit. Yes, if you take the sale price, it breaks down into direct and overhead costs. Hereʹs how it goes with this overhead. The picture is extremely dysfunctional. The question is, given the general growth of the economy ...

Rykov. How to separate direct and overhead costs?

Rosit. If we take direct costs, these are the wages of state farm workers, accounting for the value of livestock, implements and general depreciation of the farm. These are direct costs. If you take the payment for the apparatus, interest on capital, all sorts of capes and so on, then this will be, approximately, overhead costs. I say this question needs to be worked out, closest attention is required, especially now, when the rise of the state farms is outlined. And we have not heard a word about this from the representative of NKZem.

I pass on to the next question that needs to be touched upon when we talk about the role of NKZem in state farm construction. As I have pointed out earlier, ʺOn agricultural trustsʹ management system trustified state farms was entrusted directly to NKZem or through its local decree of the Central Executive Committee and SNK of March 30, the 25th year 38. If we take a closer look at how they carried out this task entrusted by the decree of the All‐Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of March 30, 25 to NKZem, then we must say that they did not fulfill this task, a direct task for NKZem. Until now, NKZem itself has paid very little attention to state farms. We had an extremely weak cell in NKZem, which was supposed to assist, help, take into account the role of state farms in the general construction of agriculture.

If you take such a body as the Gosselsyndikat, it still exists without a charter. His activities, which I will touch upon later, are outside the scope of the charter. The same is the case with individual seltrust, which exist in the RSFSR, and they do not have statutes. If we take the provision on individual state farms, that is, the provision on trusted state farms of NKZem, but it is not being implemented. Here, the control of NKZem itself is especially necessary, so that NKZem looks through the work of trusts, knows whether instructions are being followed, whether the managers of state farms are given a minimum of independence so that they can work and manage the farm in order to avoid crazy centralization in which trusts want to manage from the province or regional center state farms, sometimes spread‐out hundreds of miles from the trust. Now such phenomena are observed. This management cannot be centralized to such an extent. The task of direct real leadership and direction from the NKZem by the work of the Gosselsyndikat and individual state farms is not being carried out.

The next question is the long‐term plan of the state farms. The comrades assure that the work is already coming to an end. And, in general, the state farms will have a long‐term plan. But our surveys this year found that this work is not only coming to an end, but also very poorly done. The work on drawing up a consolidated longterm plan of state farms is not based on the organizational plans of individual state farms, and therefore will not be of practical importance for the work of state farms. It must be said that the primary materials of this long‐term plan are rather defective. Letʹs take, say, a typical example of the North Caucasus Seltrest. The North Caucasian Seltrest envisaged, according to a long‐term plan, to keep its trust apparatus within 215,000 rubles. in 1932, but he has already reached this figure this year, in the 26th year. For the same year, they had a figure of 93,000 rubles. Therefore, in perspective, the figure does not correspond to reality.

The materials, as shown by a survey of the same North Caucasian Seltrest, were not coordinated with the local land authorities, they were not considered by them. This situation exists not only with the plan of the North Caucasian Seltrest, but also with the plans of many other trusts. With such primary materials, one has to doubt that the long‐term plans that are drawn up in the center correspond to reality. Local land bodies play a very small role in assisting state farms, show little interest and help them little. I will now dwell on agricultural work, about which Comrade Svidersky also spoke. He said that this work is unprofitable now, and this is partly true. But the state farms themselves undertake this work, the state farms themselves are asking for this work. This is also indicated in the memo which the directors of the seltrests wrote to the so‐called.39. Here the directors complain directly and say that the trusted state farms are being ignored in the field of agricultural measures in the area of production plans of the land authorities. Agricultural work is to a certain extent unprofitable, but this work of the state farms must really be linked to the plans of the land authorities, which has not yet happened or which has been very weak. It is really necessary to really include the state farms in the plans of the work of the zemorgs. It can be said more, in the organizational scheme ʺstate farms‐trust‐syndicateʺ which Svidersky defended here, the land authorities and NKZem itself completely fell out. and the

Gosselsyndikat is set up as a trust of all seltrests. We are against such a trust of trusts represented by the Gosselsyndikat. There is no need to screw up such crazy centralization. Gosselsyndikat should be a more flexible organization.

In the same way, there is nothing to create the illusion that the state farms, with their agricultural work, can be isolated from the land authorities, as the Peopleʹs Commissariat of Agriculture does with its ʺstate farm‐trust‐syndicateʺ scheme. It is necessary to point out to the land authorities that they are primarily responsible for the task and that they are primarily responsible for the work of state farms. We have very good party guidelines. We have guidelines from the highest Soviet bodies so that the land bodies come close to the state farms. It is necessary that the county (district) land department should listen to the state farm located on its territory, so that this county (district) department would include the state farms in the plan of measures for agriculture, which is carried out by the land authorities. We donʹt have that. No ‐ as a rule, there is ‐ as an exception. But it needs to be the other way around. It is necessary that the whole system of land organs is real, and not only on paper, would assist the state farms, would carry out, whenever possible, through the state farms, agricultural measures to influence the dispersed peasant economy. In such cases, it is not necessary to keep the state farms on payment, as is often observed now. I think that the organizational chart that Comrade Svidersky gives is incorrect. The supreme body in the construction of state farms should be NKZem, it cannot and should not be replaced by some kind of trust of trusts in the person of Gosselsyndikat. We must remember that our state farms can influence small peasant farming. Here they say that there are many peasants in NKZem and therefore the state farms should be kept away from NKZem and the land authorities. I think that we will not be able to build a closed system of state farms isolated from the land authorities. Likewise, harmful are rumors about the hostile opposition between zemborgans and state farms. Semorgans should assist in the construction of state farms.

Now I turn to the work of the Gosselsyndikat and in the end I will dwell on the collective farms. Gosselsyndikat is a union association of state farms. It includes shareholders and Ukrainian seltrest and Belarusian seltrest. And therefore, in this case, it is very important to dwell on it. First of all, about the share capital of the Gosselsyndikat. This share capital is not available now.

Voice. He was, but very small.

Rosit. It was not enough ‐ this is true, but our examination established that he disappeared.

Ancelovich. They gave him little.

Rosit. It is absolutely correct that little was given of it, but it cannot be said that it was not given at all.

Voice. How much did they give?

Rosit. 540 thousand rubles in cash, excluding tractor property.

I will dwell on the disappearance of equity capital in more detail. According to the report for 1923‐24, approved by the State Revenue Department of the Peopleʹs Commissariat of Finance,

Gosselsyndikat made a profit of 2,927 rubles, and now, in the 26th year, during our survey it was revealed that there is no profit at all, but on the contrary, there is a loss of 304,000. rub. This, together with the loss of the previous year, absorbed the entire share capital. It is important to take into account that this disappearance of the share capital is not explained by the unprofitability of some seltrests. Iʹm talking about the direct balance of the Gosselsyndikat. which does not include losses of individual state farms and seltrests. Thus, the disappearance of this capital is just as objective a fact as the little that was given [for the long‐term plan] in the form of a share capital to Gosselindikat.

But how could this have happened? From the side of Gosselsyndikat we had a very big passion for retail.

Rykov (chairman). In Gosselsyndikate ‐ what are there, cars?

Rosit. No, it will be Gosselsklad 40, and Gosselsyndikat is an amalgamation of individual seltrests, there are about 42 of them. This is an amalgamation of state farms.

Rykov. Is this the supreme organ of state farms?

Rosit. Yes, if you like, it can be called the supreme body of state farms, but I believe that it is the highest after NKZem. In my opinion, it is necessary that NKZem should be the supreme body of state farms, so that it would manage all state farms.

Our survey, which we completed recently, found that retail trade in Gosselsyndikat was extremely large. In 1923‐24 there were 13 retail trade units, and in 1924‐1925 we have 43.

Stalin. And they lost on this.

Rosit. They lost exactly. Gosselsyndikat has a loss of about 1 million rubles as a result of trade and commercial activities for 3 years.

Rykov. And what does the Gosselsyndikat trade?

Rosit. Butter, milk, apples, wine, hay, and various other agricultural products,       partly    livestock; Gosselsyndikat has         its           own slaughterhouse 41 departments. However, it would be wrong to say that the products of state farms occupy a prominent place in the trade of the Gosselsyndikat.

In the bulk, at least 2/3, he traded in someone elseʹs, not state farm products. This must be borne in mind when we talk about the Gosselsyndikate. Targeted loans for state farms went through the Gosselsyndikat. What happened to these targeted loans? They used these targeted loans to a significant extent in retail trade. This delay of targeted loans from direct assignment by January 1, 26th was about 3 million rubles.

Kosior. And what is the total amount?

Rosit. Their total amount is much higher.

Kosior. How much?

Rosit. According to the balance sheet of 1924‐25, they received about

8 million rubles of targeted loans.

Voice. 3 million 800.

Rosit. If you say that only 3 million, I must say that this figure is not true. But that about 3 million rubles were detained. targeted loans ‐ thatʹs right. The comrades from the Gosselsyndikat have one interesting reasoning which they put forward in response to this reproach. They say: “Seltrests owe us more on promissory notes than we owe them, how is it possible, under these conditions, to assert that we are delaying targeted loans; Seltrests owe us more than we owe them. ʺ

Regarding this reasoning, it must be said definitely that this fact of the Gosselsyndikatʹs bills of exchange, reaching tens of millions of rubles in the absence of its own share capital, this fact speaks of the picture, I would say bluntly, of debauchery, lack of solidity in staging, frivolity in operations, which is allowed in this the case of the leaders of the Gosselsyndikat. I understand when a bank with fixed assets conducts bills of exchange in the tens of millions of rubles. But if Gosselsyndikat, not having a penny of its fixed capital, conducts such operations, then this cannot inspire anything other than suspicion from the banking credit system, except distrust. Gosselsyndikat reproaches the credit system, in particular the Central Agricultural Bank, that it gives them little credit. I think this is correct.

The last question about the states in the Gosselsyndicate. On January

1, 24, they had 101 units and this state cost 124 thousand rubles. in year. On April 1, 26th, the state increased to 843 units and costs 839,631 rubles. in year.

Trotsky. Itʹs in the center.

Rosit. Yes, this is a central syndicate state, including shops and including a small number, a few dozen, of those workers who drive around in the Gosselsyndikat trucks.

Trotsky. Do they have representatives in the districts?

Rosit. They rely on trusts. But the trustsʹ apparatuses are not included in the 843. In Leningrad, it is true, they have a branch, but I will tell you about Leningrad later.

Stalin. This does not exclude the possibility that they may have branches.

Rosit. They have a Moscow branch as a retail branch and a Leningrad branch. When the survey was carried out, we insisted on a tough immediate reduction of the entire staff of the syndicate to about 100, maximum 150 units. Then we demanded that the Gosselsyndikat liquidate retail trade as quickly as possible (in the next month or two). The comrades from the Gosselsyndikat were bargaining and demanded a postponement for these events until January 1, 1926.

Voice. How much does the device cost?

Rosit. This unit, which has more than 800 people, costs about 850 thousand rubles. in year. And this despite the general poverty of loans for state farms.

Yes, I forgot to say that for trade, including wholesale, overhead costs are about 23%. As you can see, the percentage is very high. In addition, the entire actual trade turnover in 1924‐25 in the Gosselsyndikat amounted to 16,163,000 rubles, including 5,218,000 rubles for wholesale trade. (32%), and the remaining 10,946,000 rubles. (68%) accounted for retail trade and small wholesale going to retail. The wholesale turnover has been falling from year to year. Comrades from NKZem and Gosselsyndikat are trying to prove the opposite by means of incorrect grouping of data. But here such a question may arise, if this is the picture of the work of the Gosselsyndicate, is the Gosselsyndicate itself necessary? And the workers of the Peopleʹs Commissariat of Agriculture and the Gosselsyndikat. sometimes responsible workers, succumbing to departmental enthusiasm, sometimes directly declare, if you draw such a work of the Gosselsyndikat, then you are against the Gosselsyndikat. At the same time, comrades very often begin to reproach that RCT has a departmental approach, etc. Such reproaches are wrong and must be firmly dismissed. Based on the survey materials, we come to the conclusion that the Gosselsyndikat must exist, that there must be a unification of agricultural organizations. trusts, an all‐Union association represented by Gosselsyndikat.

Rykov. Is there a union association now?

Rosit. Gosselsyndikat is the union association. But we believe that the role of this allied syndicate should be the role of the allied syndicate. He should not directly administer or manage state farms from Moscow. He must work on the wholesale of agricultural products. trusts and state farms, conduct wholesale supply operations and be an intercessor here in the center of loans for state farms. Comrades say you are taking him to the role of hucksters.

Kosior. Just the opposite.

Rosit. I must also say that it is quite the opposite. This is, on the one hand, and on the other hand, if he really, having his own capital, considers his primary task to sell products and supply state farms, then under these conditions, what prevents him from consulting with the directors of trusts when selling products, when supplying them, when organizing a sowing campaign, etc. Some comrades say that they directly reproached us that the RKI‐Central Control Commission, discussing the question of state farms, could not rise above the roof of the Gosselsyndikat. I sweep it aside and say that this roof is very important, tens of millions are turning under it. There is also such a law ‐ the resolution of the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of the RSFSR dated May 15, 1925 42, who says that the Gosselsyndikat should not have direct management of the production of seltrests and state farms, that the Gosselsyndikat economically affects the organization of production through sales and supply, that it does not need to be given administrative rights. There is such a law. And the comrades in this case from Gosselsyndikat and NKZem stubbornly include in the draft charter such a clause that the syndicate must manage production.

Svidersky. And they did it in spite of you.

Rosit.I do not know where you spent, in any case, until recently it was not. For our part, we object to this. In addition, there is a law of the All‐Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of March 30, 25 (I do not know about the abolition of this law), which says that production functions should not be given to Gosselsyndikat. Instead of real implementation of these absolutely correct government decrees, the comrades at NKZem are engaged in a very harmful way on this issue ‐ gag. Finishing this question, I say, our opinion is that Gosselindikat should not be given direct command of production. There is a law, we need to make NKZem comply with it. For the second year they have been pulling bagpipes and do not comply with this law and maintain in the apparatus of the Gosselsyndikat some kind of economic planning department, one staff of which for two years (until 1926.) has already cost the state farms 147,629 rubles. And this expense for the syndicate must be reduced, if not completely eliminated.

The last link is the seltrest apparatuses below the Gosselsyndikat. They are available in almost every province, and where zoning with regional division is carried out, there are regional seltrests. This device, in our opinion, is also incredibly expensive and creates very high overhead costs. At the end of 1925, the Central Control Commission signaled the high cost of this apparatus to the NKZem and Gosselsyndikat in connection with the dispatch of members of the Central Control Commission to examine the lower apparatus in the countryside. In particular, such information was available for Kaluga. Kaluga state farms are mostly rather small state farms, in total there are about 25 state farms in the province. Then it turned out that one apparatus of the Govseltrest costs 25 thousand rubles. It turned out that state farms, on average, each had 1,000 rubles. must give for the maintenance of the provincial apparatus. Our state farms grow, rise, but if 1000 rubles are withdrawn from them. for one content of the Gubseltrest apparatus, they are not so rich as to have such an expensive apparatus. We signaled that it is necessary to reduce overhead costs, that the state farms cannot afford to maintain such an expensive trust apparatus. However, until very recently NKZem either did nothing or did very little on this issue. Quite recently, in May 1926, an examination of the Leningrad Gubernia Seltrest and the North Caucasian Regional Seltrest was carried out. In the Leningrad Seltrest, the picture turned out that, in addition to the Seltrest apparatus, there is also a branch of the Gosselsyndikat of 140 people. And if you take only the trust apparatus itself, in 1925 it cost 42,419 rubles. 59 kopecks, or 4 rubles. 72 kopecks. on a tithe of comfortable land, not including the Leningrad branch of the Celtrest government. How will state farms grow with such a trust and syndicate apparatus? If we take the North Caucasian Regional Seltrest, then here for a tithe of comfortable land (there are large powerful state farms, growing state farms, sheer joy, living proof that state farms can grow and rise) there is about 2 rubles. 06 kopecks And I must make a reservation about this figure. It turns out from them that the regional trust apparatus costs about 215 thousand rubles, but this also includes interest in the amount of about 70 thousand rubles for capital. If we drop this last figure from the cost of maintaining the administration of the regional seltrest, then the figure for a tithe of convenient land will not be 2 rubles. 06 kopecks, and about 1 rub. 25 kopecks but even if you take 1 rub. 25 kopecks, then this is too expensive for a tithe of comfortable land. This time. Secondly, capital interest overheads cannot be excluded from the total overheads. This is also an overhead expense, no matter how the comrades from NKZem and Gosselsyndikat argue against it. When calculating the overhead costs, I used the tithe of the convenient land as the basis. The comrades also object to this and say that the trust also has industrial enterprises. It is true that there are subsidiary enterprises. But at the same time, the vitality and fidelity of this calculation on a tithe of comfortable land is indisputable, because in our state farms, a tithe of convenient land is the basis of any calculation. This calculation per tithe of comfortable land is conditional, but it is very important.

In the same way, the use of targeted loans is used to maintain the gubernatorial apparatus. According to the Leningrad survey and the Tver survey of the local RCI, it is clear that there targeted loans are used to maintain the apparatus. There is only one conclusion for us here: the trusting of state farms is the right measure, the right way, but it is necessary to reduce the cost of the apparatus itself. This is also clear to us, and we emphasize it with all our might.

In closing, I must draw the following main conclusions. In the field of state farm construction, our main conclusions are that lending and financing of state farms is not enough, technical enterprises that provide benefits and support to our state farms have not been transferred to them, that all this needs to be strengthened and that the demands of the comrades who are working on the construction of our state farms in this regard are correct. But this requirement must be combined with another measure ‐ a tough reduction in overhead costs for the maintenance of the administrative apparatus, to create an apparatus that would be within the pocket of our rising state farm system. This is the second conclusion. I must add that banks are also pointing out the need to reduce overhead costs. They agree that loans are small, but it is no less true when they require the system itself to be streamlined. The third conclusion is that NKZem should come close to the state farms. NKZem and local land authorities should include state farms in their system of events so that directors do not complain that NKZem ignores them when holding cultural events.

A few words about collective farms. Comrade Kaminsky said that it is necessary to prohibit collective farms from creating their own center, and this is what the resolution says. We believe, based on the development of materials for the survey of collective farms, that there is no need to rush into this issue and should not be prohibited from it. Comrade Kaminsky said that union union should not be allowed. Comrade Kaminsky do not shade, you have Oil Center 43 and other centers.

For all of them, you recognize, in most cases, the possibility of uniting on a republican scale or on a union scale. All of you acknowledge this, but in this case you want the Politburo to say now that industrial agricultural cooperatives should be banned from having their own branch. I am finishing. When talking about communes, the question of the charter of the commune itself must be raised. We can make concessions in the area of regulations, not communize everything, but if only we can keep large economic units. This is where the bylaws issue is important. Weakening of every way of life in our communes, which in many cases represent large economic areas, [are possible]. You can go for indulgences, if only to preserve the commune as a real unit of large‐scale farming, through which it is possible to influence small‐scale peasant farming in the direction of its reorganization.

Rykov. Comrade has the floor. Ancelovich.

Ancelovich. I would like to draw the attention of the Politburo to the fact that state farms employ about 100 thousand permanent workers and women workers, together with seasonal workers ‐ 300 thousand people. Speaking about the work of the workers, we can say that they take out the state farms. They are taken out in two ways. Firstly, we in the state farms do not carry out practically some elementary labor protection measures. That this is not an exaggeration can be seen from the following.

Stalin. Specifically, specifically.

Ancelovich. Yes, we have not yet carried out a number of labor protection measures in the interests of restoring state farms, with the consent of the workers.

Stalin. Specifically, what are you not doing?

Ancelovich. For example, in most state farms we do not carry out a normal working day, the necessary wage increases and a whole series of other measures. The attitude of workers to state farms is also characterized by another important fact: workers annually for 4‐5 months, especially before harvesting, give loans to state farms. State farm workers see no better way out of their difficult situation than to restore their farms and then create more normal working conditions on this basis. But so that the efforts of s.‐kh. workers for the restoration of state farms were not in vain, it is necessary to practically resolve the issue of financing and loans to state farms.

In conditions when the state farms are showing their viability, it is necessary, finally, to raise this question more seriously than it has been raised up to now. Even the credit that is given to state farms is given every time, either for six months or more with a delay, or almost on conditions that are onerous for the development of state farms. In the spring, after the plowing period has been disrupted, they are given for harvesting, and in the fall, having disrupted the harvest and the winter campaign, for the spring plowing. This introduces the state farms into a disadvantageous deal, violates any production plan, and the result is not a loan, but some kind of mockery.

Voice. And you use for plowing what they give for harvesting.

Ancelovich. Itʹs not as easy as they say. But at this time a new agricultural campaign begins, and new needs are not taken into account. Each agricultural campaign is a whole event in the development of state farms. At the same time, the point in many cases is not only in the size of the loan, but also in the fact that the loan is given on unacceptable conditions. There is a resolution of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the Party to take from the state farms no more than 8%, but in fact the state farms pay 12‐18% 44. Credit institutions resort to all sorts of tricks to raise these interest rates.

Another fact of the wrong credit policy in relation to state farms is the failure to comply with the Orgburoʹs resolution on the continuity of credit for state farms. I also draw the attention of the Politburo to the following extremely important fact, whether the s.‐kh. subsidiary industrial enterprises on state farms, and we think of a state farm as a combine, exist if they (mills, oil churns, distilleries, etc.) are not even secured with some kind of credit, and on average the creditworthiness of state farms is in any case not lower than many associations s.‐kh. cooperatives using a fairly broad credit.

The financial situation of the state farms is undoubtedly difficult, but they have not yet been provided with basic capital. Equally, the fixed capital was not given to the Gosselindikat. The fact that here they refer to some fixed capital of the Gosselsyndikat is a simple misunderstanding. They were given broken, rejected tractors, and they were credited to the fixed capital. Deficiencies, mistakes, unnecessary overhead costs — all this is indisputable, we do not deny this as the Central Committee of the Union 45, they did take place. But this statement alone is not enough to show the state of the state farms and what needs to be done for them.

The Gosselindikat, as I have already said, was not given basic, let alone working capital, and it was forced to follow the path of retail trade in order to find some means to support its apparatus. This path was clearly unsuccessful, wrong ‐ the shops were burned out. But in order not to push the Gosselsyndikat to wrong actions, a year or two ago it was necessary to seriously raise the question of financing and lending to state farms.

Yes, if we want to preserve the state farms, based on their viability and importance, then we need to provide them and their associations, including the Gosselsyndikat, with elementary credit, and not pursue an unacceptable credit policy towards them from year to year. The Politburo must be told that if a dozen or two state farms are liquidated every year, it is not at all because the peasants are badly disposed towards the state farms. I personally visited the state farms and, as the chairman of the union, I must say that in any region the bulk of the peasants prefer to liquidate the preservation of existing state farms (except, of course, certain individuals, obvious kulaks) if these state farms create seed and pedigree material, give earnings, and pay on time and are at a significantly higher agricultural and technical level than the surrounding peasant farms. And if there are misunderstandings in any region, they are manifested primarily due to the fact that land management has not been carried out, and also due to the fact that the peasants do not see that the state is paying due attention to these state farms. This is undeniable. When all the state farms of the RSFSR have only 400 tractors, this is where one should look for an explanation of the still bad attitude of some peasants towards the state farms.

The average size of a state farm is 500‐400 dessiatines. There is certainly no benefit to keeping one tractor on such a farm. After all, the profitability of a tractor can only be when there are several of them per farm. What are we seeing: tractors are already appearing in the individual peasant farms of the Kuban and Nikolayevshchina, but most of the state farms do not have them yet? If they want to avoid the question of liquidating state farms, then it is urgently necessary to carry out, firstly, land management at the expense of the state for 100%; secondly, to transform state farms into canals, conductors of all agricultural activities of the Soviet state among the peasantry, which, as a rule, has not been done so far; thirdly, it is necessary at congresses, in particular, Soviet and others, to say less that we are ready, they say, to liquidate certain state farms, as is, unfortunately,

After all, this becomes known to the peasantry, and the peasantry ceases to regard state farms as a national value, in the preservation of which everyone is interested. The peasants think about factories, they say, but since they often talk about the liquidation of state farms, it means that they will be liquidated anyway.

In conclusion, I would like to say the following. Comparing different types of large‐scale state and cooperative agriculture in the current conditions, in my opinion, one of the most viable forms of largescale farming is the state farms.

As for the collective farms, it must be said that for 20 thousand of these farms we have only 3,000 collective farms‐communes.

Stalin.    Collective            farms‐communes,            collectivization,                 and consumption?

Ancelovich. No, not required. The socialization of consumption is currently a rare phenomenon. There are very few clean communes. For 23 thousand business associations, what are called collectives, those where production is mainly socialized, only 3000, and the rest are partnerships and artels. And it must be said that the noted attitude towards state farms on the part of many, including credit authorities, also takes place in the field of collective farm development. We have no practice to study and in practice to assist the transition of artels and partnerships from the simplest forms of their development to more complex forms. The position of s.‐kh. cooperation and the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land is correct in the sense that a general course is taken towards the most accessible, simplest forms for the peasantry. But at the same time, it is necessary to emphasize in the work on the practical assistance of the entire agricultural sector. cooperation,

I think that the Politburo will take into account Comradeʹs remarks. Rosita about the large overhead costs of state farm trusts and the Gosselsyndikat, but the focus of this discussion will be made on the fact that the economic viability, the growth of state farms and their associations are no longer disputed by anyone, which was the case before.

For their strengthening and development, state farms do not need such large amounts of crediting and financing, and even in the near future, significant results of economic and political significance can be obtained.

But the money from financing and lending must be released in a timely manner and on more favorable terms. Until now, credit policy has not made it possible to pay on time even the already low wages, which was and will be until this is eliminated not a prerequisite, but an obstacle to the further development of state farms as a form of socialist agriculture and the creation of strong cadres of an agricultural proletariat in them.

Rykov (chairman). I give the floor to Comrade Vinnikov from Ukraine. Five minutes.

Vinnikov. Let me dwell on the defects that we have in the field of collectivization and which the speaker, Comrade Kaminsky, did not dwell on. These defects are explained not only by objective conditions, but partly by our mistakes. The first defect to look out for is that we are more concerned with quantity than with quality in collective building. Iʹll tell you from the practice of Ukraine. In our country, collectivization has developed in different periods more spontaneously than naturally. The rapid, spontaneous growth of collective farms took place at a time when the economy was experiencing a severe crisis as a result of crop failures and when the state provided assistance, first of all, to collective farms with seeds and loans. This has been used by many. As a result, we had a lot of pseudo‐collective farms.

This experience, these tendencies of the population had to be taken into account, now we are using our incentive policy in relation to collective farms (preferential machine supply, tractor supply, crediting, etc.). In Ukraine, in one year more than 1,000 tractor associations were formed; [these tractor associations have become the focus of attention of banks, cooperatives and the state apparatus in general. ]They were organized not because there was a desire to move to collective forms of management, but many of them were formed because they wanted to get tractors, in other words, to use the encouraging policy of the state; and thanks to this we have a part of pseudo‐comradeships, they disintegrate, and the tractors eventually go to one or two more prosperous peasants, while in Ukraine there are more than five thousand collective farms and half of them have shown themselves in organizational and economically on the best side and needs tractors. These collectives should be put in the center of attention in the sense of servicing them, supplying them with tractors in the first place. These defects will need to be taken into account in the future, it seems to me, it should be established, as a rule,

The second question is the issue of servicing collective farms. It must be stated that neither the land authorities, nor the agricultural. cooperation, which is entrusted with the service, this service is not adequately dealt with. Cooperation is engaged in servicing collectives insofar as it has commercial benefits from this, buys products from them and supplies them with the necessary items. This service [is or is based on a community of interest. But cooperation, of course, always unconditionally presents conditions that] are sometimes not beneficial to the collectives and, as a result, 50% of the collectives are outside the cooperation, they do not go into cooperation, because they have no real service from the cooperation.

Trotsky. Thatʹs it.

Kaminsky. It is not right.

Vinnikov. Comrade Kaminsky, I speak from the practice of Ukraine, maybe you have other data. And here it is necessary to pay attention to s.‐kh. cooperation on the need for more real service, sales organization, supply, agronomic assistance and so on.

True, it is difficult for cooperation to resolve the issue of agronomic services. In Ukraine, 30% of collectives, on whose territory the foot of an agronomist, neither land authorities, nor cooperatives have set foot. These collectives are helpless and partly fall apart for this reason. Here it is necessary on the part of the state to provide cooperation with financial assistance for the maintenance of agronomic personnel. [This event from the point of view of todayʹs effect may be unprofitable, but from the point of view of building a collective economy in accordance with all the rules of science and technology.] This event must be held, because I am convinced that without agronomic services the collectives will not get out of the state of the consumer economy, they will not achieve in their economy what we demand of them.

One more question, which, in my opinion, needs to be resolved, because its failure to resolve it affects the economic activity of the collective. This is a question about buildings and equipment handed over to teams. We donated to collectives not only land, but also former landlord buildings, living and dead implements during the liquidation of unearned land use. Until now, nowhere in the law is it written: either these residential buildings and services are transferred to collectives for labor use, leaving the state the right to control the rational economic use of these buildings, or these buildings are sold to collectives on favorable terms. There are two opinions ‐ for and against, but in the end the issue has not been resolved, and thanks to this, the teams cannot begin to re‐equip these buildings. There are, for example, buildings that are completely unnecessary for the economy, mansions, etc., but they can be used if rebuilt. This issue needs to be resolved. In addition, there are times when our financial authorities sell this property. We had such a case. There have been two collectives for four years, for their economic activities, they received an award at the exhibition for their achievements, and in these collectives in May they sell such property: a mower, a winnowing machine, a booker, a thresher with a locomotive. Thus, two organizations are ruined. This, of course, is not an isolated case. winnower, booker, thresher with a locomotive. Thus, two organizations are ruined. This, of course, is not an isolated case. winnower, booker, thresher with a locomotive. Thus, two organizations are ruined. This, of course, is not an isolated case.

Trotsky. For non‐payment?

Vinnikov. No, they consider it state property. Despite the fact that this property has been in their use for four years, that they have repaired this property, overhauled it, suddenly, for no reason at all, they announce an auction and sell it. And they sold it. The Stalin Okrug Executive Committee intervened in this matter, and it is possible that part of the property was returned.

Specifically, for this part, I propose to resolve the issue in the direction of assigning to collectives for labor use what was transferred to them during the period of liquidation of unearned land use.

The last question is organizational. At the last plenum of the AllUnion Council of Collective Farms, if it can be called the All‐Union Council, I personally do not know why it was called the All‐Union

Council.

Svidersky. For greater importance.

Vinnikov. I personally did not support the proposal to immediately establish an all‐Union collectivization center. I think it is premature to raise this question now.

Trotsky. And the republican centers?

Vinnikov. And republican centers are also not needed now.

Svidersky. Right.

Vinnikov. The center can be created only when the periphery becomes stronger, in other words, when the conditions are suitable for its creation. But it is premature to defame the center in such a way as Comrade Kaminsky does it here, that it is not needed at all, that the center will be useless. The idea of creating a center is not supported in Ukraine, now we consider it untimely. In the same way, we do not support the idea of Comrade. Kaminsky on the creation of the so‐called sections at the unions. These sections are here and there, and there is also a collective farm council in Ukraine. But life does not justify the existence of these organizations, they do not provide anything real for collectivization. And, for example, we have a proposal to create bodies in the center and districts that would unite the cause of collectivization, would direct this movement.

I believe, as the representative of Central Control Commission 46 said, that it is untimely to raise this question of creating a union of collective farms. I am not making any proposals on this issue now, [because Ukraineʹs proposals are diametrically opposed to your proposals. I think that we should not open a discussion now, it will hardly be convenient] since this issue requires agreement.

Chairman. Comrade has the floor. Krutoshinsky.

Krutoshinsky. There are a lot of diseases in the collective farm movement and, undoubtedly, much more than can be covered in a two‐hour lecture, but there are also many achievements. One of the most serious diseases of the collective farm movement must be considered the inability of the population uniting in collective farms to build collectives as large farms. This inability leads to the disintegration of a significant part of the collective farms. If we take a closer look at those, albeit small, materials that we have in this respect, we will see that in the overwhelming majority of cases the construction of capital on collective farms is wrong, that with the economic means that are available, we can go to economic disintegration, and not to decline, as we often see. This is explained by the fact that peasants who have adapted to build small individual farms are united in collective farms. In state farms, there, in the order of administrative pressure, the involvement of agronomists and a number of other specialists serves the needs of the state farms, in the collective farms this is not the case, the collective farms are left to themselves. The most serious attention must be paid to this aspect and the collective farms must be helped in an organized manner. The state, in the order of a 25% discount from the tax, in the order of a series of benefits that are given to collective farms, spends certain funds on the development of collective agriculture. But I believe that a significant part of these funds, without paying sufficient attention to the construction of the farms themselves, go to waste. It seems to me that it is necessary to raise the question of how the collective farms should organize and direct their work in economic and organizational terms so that they grow and grow stronger and give corresponding incomes to themselves and the state. This is a very important question. And here one cannot do without spending money on organizing the collective farm movement.

What is the connection with the system of cooperation and how should the question of directing the construction of agricultural enterprises be raised? collectives? In 1924 and 25, the same in the district consumer cooperation system [(in the 23rd year, cooperation was just being organized), less than 50% of collectives in the RSFSR, in Ukraine and other union republics were associated with cooperation], less than 50% is available and this year. And the remaining 50% are ʺhomelessʺ.

Consequently, the organizational connection between collective farms and cooperatives does not increase. In absolute terms, this relationship is certainly increasing. The number of collective farms in cooperation is increasing, but at the same time the number of wild collective farms is increasing. Consequently, there are some shortcomings in the existing organizational relationships of collective farms with agricultural cooperatives. The system of cooperation cannot be blamed for this shortcoming. The cooperation is working on sales and supply. The collective farms currently need mainly to transform them into large farms, they need technical assistance, they need specialist workers. For the transition to an improved land use system, they need agronomists, for the correct setting of bookkeeping, they need accountants, for the construction of an enterprise for processing products, an engineer, etc. etc. In the current situation, the collective farms do not receive, and cannot receive, all that they need in organizing large‐scale farms, neither from the cooperatives, nor from the zem‐ organs. The self‐activity that collective farms manifest in this respect for the purpose of selfservice, the development of this self‐activity should not be artificially delayed, because such a delay, apart from harm, would bring nothing. Neither s.‐kh. the cooperatives, neither the zem‐ organs, nor the state as a whole can, and it is not advisable, to provide sufficient funds for servicing the collective farms; they must be attracted from the collective farms themselves. No one objects that the connection between collective farms and cooperation should be close, but this connection should be established not in a unilateral compulsory manner, but so that collective farms, as an equal with an equal, in a contractually organized manner, and not in a scattering procedure, as it is now, were part of the system of s.kh. cooperation. The system of agricultural cooperatives specialize in their work, collective farms also specialize, and peasant farms will specialize, unless this specialization has already begun. This raises the question of how collective farms should unite with cooperation, should collective farms be squandered in special unions ‐ Oil Center, Flax Center47etc., or should they be associated with a universal system of cooperation, or should they have their own association? We have an All‐Union Council of Collective Farms without funds, without rights. NKZem of Ukraine refused at first to take part in this, but the collective farms of Ukraine elected representatives, and then NKZem gave them. The All‐Union Council is an advisory body, and it cannot be done otherwise than as advisory. It should combine the experience of all Soviet republics. Republican associations of collective farms must have funds, apparatus, and rights. There are sections of collective farms, there are collective farms unions, there are collective farm departments under unions, there are also places where there is no apparatus for servicing collective farms, and, perhaps, there are more of the latter. In a word, the most diverse forms of attitude towards cooperation. What should be the formulation of the question now? It seems to me, that through sections of collective farms it is necessary to set a course for independent collective farm unions. There are organizational and economic prerequisites for this. What can be a section without funds? Nothing. Consequently, at the same time it is necessary to raise the question of raising funds not only directly from the collective farms, but also from the agricultural unions. cooperation as deductions from the turnover of the latter with the collective farms, in my deep conviction, another formulation of the question will give very little, in any case, it will not give what is required in terms of setting work in the collective farm movement, this is on the one hand, and on the other hand, it does not will give the opportunity to mobilize the initiative of agricultural workers. collectives, which is already manifesting itself. The collective council decided to deduct 15 kopecks. from tithes, but did not give directives to the places. Therefore, one cannot say that collective farms do not give money for self‐service. At the present time we have such a situation that, in spite of the long‐term work of agricultural workers cooperation, after all, more than half of the collective farms still remain wild, outside the system of the latter. I cannot agree with Comrade Kaminsky that the posing of the question of collective farm unions is reactionary and leads back to universal cooperative unions. The collective farm movement has specific features, and collective farms are built on the opposite of individual farming on the basis of one organizational measure, one and the other cannot be put into one organizational form. The question of collective farm unions is not a return to cooperative universalism, but a question of the organized, planned, and not as scattered, spontaneous, with painful deviations, collective farm movement in the countryside. It is necessary to practically earn some money, how to carry out sales, having available special sales centers. Undoubtedly it is inexpedient to create two bodies, this is an indisputable truth. The supply of not particularly complex machines, in particular tractors, must be carried out through the collective farm unions, and nothing bad will happen here. Then production services, planned and organizational, can be fully provided to the collective farm unions, which will do this work much better in their own interests. Credit planning, the creation of special capitals for the development of collective farm development, the creation and accumulation of indivisible capital on collective farms — this is the task of the collective farm union. Unions must be legal organizations and have the right to form capital. I believe that it is necessary to take a course towards a union of collective farms on the basis set out above. The last remark is regarding the formulation of the question of taxes. Taxes on collective farms and rent on land and buildings on collective farms ruin them because that collective farms are taxed above individual farmers. These issues need to be urgently reviewed. True, on February 16, the STO adopted a resolution to abolish the unprofitable policy for collective farms 48, but this has not yet been carried out in practice and contradicts the policy pursued by the Party in relation to collective farms.

Rykov. Comrade has the floor. Shefler.

Shefler. The common thing in these two questions about collective farms and state farms is their homelessness and the lack of lending to them from the Central Agricultural Bank. Therefore, it seems that we have to speak about both reports only from this point of view. At present, there is neither a system of state farms, nor a system of collective farms. State farms do not have a system, although state farms are included in agricultural trusts, but there are some state farms that are not included in agricultural trusts, but belong to zemorgans and are used by zemorgans for distributing summer cottages, but not used as state farm enterprises. Seltrests do not have a correct system, there is no production coordination of work on state farms. Comrade A. It grows that state farms often do not have sufficient economic initiative and that their activities are hampered in the sense that from the center, from seltrests, too many elements of administration are manifested in relation to individual state farms. The same for lending. Lending is poorly set, because it is not the state farms, not the units of the production type, that have the right to credit and require credit, but seltrests, which do not yet have the real meaning of the production center uniting state farms, and even more so the Gosselsyndikat, which, in essence, in Moscow, a kind of retail and wholesale company ʺGosselsindikatʺ, but not a real production and economic association of state farms. If we approach it from this point of view, then I think it would be wrong to look for ways to raise the state farm economy only by expanding lending to it from the Central agricultural. bank or some other credit system. First of all, it is necessary to heal those organizational problems that exist in the very system of state farms. Then it is necessary to correctly build relationships within the system of state farms and to cure their financial economy not by lending, but by sufficient load of their fixed capital and their own circulating assets, which is currently not available. We have many business enterprises that do not yet have working capital and fixed capital, which is explained by a number of reasons, everyone understands this, but building an organization correctly only on the basis of lending is, of course, completely impossible, because credit institutions cannot agree to their funds, provided on credit, would not go in the order of turnover with the hope of returning later from this turnover, but would go to expand the fixed capital of enterprises. Clear, that a credit institution, which is responsible for the correct organization of lending and for the correct organization of the case that is entrusted to it, cannot act by providing funds that will be used to patch up holes in fixed capital, and there are still a lot of these holes, in particular, in seltrests, state farms, etc. It seems to me that what the speakers told us characterizes the other side of the difficulties in lending to state farms. Comrade Svidersky used the figures for 192223, and about 1924‐25 he said that NKZem did not have any accounting figures yet. This shows that the reporting is more than a year behind. Hence the conclusion that lending institutions, which are required to set credit discipline, to set lending on the right healthy start, cannot lend to institutions for which reporting is not ready a year ago. It is clear to everyone that under these conditions the task of curing the state farms can only be set by means of crediting, as Comrade Ancelovich, who only focused on this issue, is wrong.

Ancelovich. On funding.

Shefler. If you said ʺfunded,ʺ that would be correct. It is necessary to pay attention to the cure of the economic shortcomings of this system. The shortcomings were noted by Comrade Rosit. I must point out that in practice we are faced with these shortcomings and it turns out that targeted loans are not used for their intended purpose, targeted loans are often used for the overhead costs of trusts, Gosselsyndikat, etc., and therefore it is extremely difficult for credit institutions to work with state farms. [I join Krutoshinskyʹs point of view about the need to have an amalgamation of state farms in the form of union amalgamations, but so far local ones.] I must say that the system of a union center of state farms has not yet justified itself [because all union centers are a heap] ... In particular, the Gosselsyndikat is a union of a union scale, and not only does it never raise the question of separating the RSFSR union from it, but in fact it does not even unite the Ukrainian state farms. So far, we can only talk about a republican unification, and it would be premature to talk now about a unification on the scale of the RSFSR. In Ukraine, in the Transcaucasus, perhaps, conditions are outlined for unification on a republican scale. As for collective farm associations, they are necessary as supply organizations, because the nature of collective farms is different from peasant farms. If they build their economy on the basis of sales on a collective basis towards a certain bonus for collective sales, then in relation to collective farms it is necessary to solve a number of other problems, in particular, consumer supply. All the same, collective farms need consumer supplies, and if they buy from a private owner, it will be abnormal. Therefore, such local associations could begin to build, it would be an experience that would make it possible to get rid of the homelessness of collective farms. I affirm that both of these systems are homeless because the state farms have no real owner, and the collective farms are homeless, because agricultural. cooperation regards them as an alien element. I would ask permission to add just two words as some illustration of what can happen when the reverse position is too great a favor. There is such a Krasno‐Mechenskoe partnership, headed by Lipaev, a very cunning peasant, with a cunning approach to business, cunning conversation, etc. It gradually grew into a rather large partnership and grew exclusively at the expense of state funds.

Kaminsky. Well done.

Shefler. And this farm, this partnership, which has only 300 members, of which the majority of them are newcomers, not the local population, has a loan of 60 thousand rubles, of which 37 thousand rubles. long‐term. And due to the fact that a short‐term loan is also invested in a long‐term premises ...

Rykov. 300 members have 60 thousand rubles.

Stalin. 300 yards or 300 eaters?

Shefler. 300 eaters. They now need to transfer the entire loan into a long‐term one, since they have invested part of the short‐term loan in a long‐term premises.

Trotsky. 300 eaters or 300 workers?

Shefler. 300 eaters.

Voice. 300 farms?

Shefler. No. It seems like 300 eaters. This partnership was examined by a very interesting peasant, a promoted comrade. Makhalin. He was a member of the board of Rosselbank, and now a member of the board of the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Social Security 49... A very interesting peasant promoted. He went, examined this Lipaevskoe partnership and claims that there is no connection with the peasantry either with the collective or with the head of Comrade. Lipaev is gone. This partnership irrationally uses state loans, because it maintains two schools, 3 agronomists, i.e., creates agricultural costs that do not match its capacity. He found out that the head of the collective farm, Comrade. Lipaev leads the partnership, not without personal interest. His children are learning at the expense of the commune, as nominated by it. This he himself said. If many organizations undertake such a collective partnership, then there will be no benefit, but harm. In Siberia, there are, indeed, farms that are growing on a correct and rational basis.

Rykov. Comrade Kosior has the floor.

Kosior. I, comrades, very much regret that these two questions have been mixed together. In essence, these are two different questions. If there was a report on the question of state farms and some assessment in the co‐report, then on the question of collective farms there was nothing, except for the speech of Kaminsky, who gave some considerations on the organizational question. And this is important for us. The collective farms deserved a special approach, very serious and careful. Last year 24‐25 was a significant turning point in this matter. If in 21‐22 there was a disintegration, if in 23‐24 there was some equilibrium and stabilization, then in 24‐25 on new healthier foundations under new conditions we have a growth of collective farms, and the growth is spontaneous. since there are no organizational measures in the sense of strengthening this work on our part. This growth is in spite of that unusually weak attention, what is available on the part of the cooperation, on the part of the credit authorities, and on the part of our local party organizations. How are these collective farms growing? They grow in this way. There is a little man, I saw a lot of them, who has a kind of worm to create something communal, common. When he comes to the city, he goes from institution to institution, from cooperatives to agricultural loans, from agricultural loans to the land department and, as a rule, cannot get anything really anywhere. I have seen many such organizers who fight like a fish on the ice, because there is no such organization that could tell them what is needed and what is needed, and help practically move this matter. Collective farms are now being organized around agricultural cooperatives. I argue that they are in no way connected with agricultural cooperation, they are attached purely artificially. Here and there sections exist, in some places nothing exists. They are on the rights of street children. The cooperatives do not know what is going on in the communes and collective farms. Collective farms are not somehow organically connected with agricultural cooperation, but where there are individual active party members in the collective farms who are interested, or very initiative peasants, they come to the city, sign up for a union and keep in touch, and for the most part go where they can get any assistance (as a rule, the cooperation cannot provide such assistance) and remain outside the union. Here they argue over an organizational issue. Of course, the collective farms should be united by agricultural cooperatives, but so far agricultural cooperatives are the main thing, they focus on sales, and not direct production work. To see what is going on in the collective farms, to enter there, to approach, to help with guidance, advice, this is not the case.

The very essence of these collective farm organizations. In the 22nd year since the time of War Communism, a huge number of communes have been created. Those that survived, almost all of them reorganized in terms of the organization of consumption. As a rule, of course, there are isolated cases of complete communes. The overwhelming majority switched to their own individual household, their own kitchen, etc. Now there is a great search within the communes, collective farms, how to organize the matter more rationally, on the one hand, so that there is a common economy, on the other hand, so that due to internal friction, especially on the part of women who bring discord, the same time stimulus and personal interest in the further development of the commune or collective farm.

By the way, there is a desire to create new collective farms. This confirms the very fact of growth, moreover, spontaneous growth. They say we have a credit fund, but, as a rule, unfortunately, as comrade. Shefler and his bodies, as a rule, do not give credit to collective farms. They have little money and there is no one to intercede for them in this respect, they go everywhere, ask, but get nothing.

On the whole, we have scanty figures united in collective farms, if we take into account the total number of agricultural enterprises. partnerships, then half a percent will not be typed. The main thing now is that the local authorities and agricultural cooperatives approached the building of collective farms closer and more attentively than hitherto, treated the matter. We must help the collective farms. S.‐kh. cooperation must bear in mind the question of what is now between the commune and the simplest kind of agricultural. There are a number of steps in the cooperative; a number of these steps must be counted among collective farms. S.kh. cooperation should pay more attention to this whole business, so that it does not develop spontaneously, but that there is organization both in the sense of expanding in breadth and ordering this growth in terms of quality.

Chairman. I give the floor to Comrade Yakovlev.

Yakovlev. The main question we have in building collective farms is the economic situation of the collective farms. Comrade Kosior is right! S.‐kh. cooperation did not serve the collective farms, only now we are observing the process of transformation of consumer farms into commodity farms, and this process of the transformation of a consumer economy into commodity farms is accompanied by a great interest of agricultural enterprises. cooperation in servicing collective farms. Here, in addition to any regulations, economic factors are at work. It must be said that basically the collective farms are stabilizing, there is no eating up of what has been given to them, and what they acquired earlier, on which they were created, etc., but the process of simple reproduction still dominates among them. We do not yet have accumulation and expanded reproduction here. The main task that we face is to achieve the process of expanded reproduction, for this process to begin, especially since the growth rate of marketability outstripped the growth rate of the population, including the elderly and children, so that marketable output per worker would increase from year to year. This task is before us in the first place. Letʹs take numbers. In 1926, the gross harvest of grain crops on the lands of collective farms of the RSFSR is expected to be 38,532 thousand poods. After deducting consumption on the farm (seeding, consumption of people and livestock in the total amount of 21 629 thousand poods), the commodity part will be expressed in the amount of 17 122 thousand poods.

This is a commercial product that is thrown away this year, by assumption. Consequently, if we assume that the average yield on collective farms is 10% higher than the average yield of a peasant farm, which corresponds to the available data, then we will receive a surplus over domestic consumption of only 17 million poods. Even if we assume that bread will be sold for 1 ruble. per pood, the collective farms will receive 17 million rubles. At the expense of this proceeds, consumer needs (clothing, footwear, etc.) of 950,000 consumers should be satisfied first of all. The rest will go into productive accumulation. But after all, with such a meager amount of commodity surplus per consumer (about £ 1.5 <ounce> 50per month) there will be nothing left for productive accumulation, and we will not get an expansion of the economy. It is necessary to increase this marketability, raise labor productivity, and create surpluses for expanding the economy. How is it going? First of all, about land management. Land management of collective farms has been carried out on 66%. On 34% of the collective farms are not equipped with land, this is despite the fact that the Peopleʹs Commissariat of Agriculture announced that all collective farms will be organized for the winter sowing of 1926.

The second question is the question of the so‐called state lands. In communes of state land 50.9%, 49.1% ‐ their own. In artels 45% are state lands, 55% are their own, in associations for public cultivation of land ‐ 37.8% are state, 62.2% of their lands. A double tax is taken from such state lands: both rent and ordinary tax. In particular, this burden hits the simplest forms, where the majority of middle peasants go. It is necessary that these lands be transferred to labor use, so that agricultural payments should be made from these lands. tax and nothing more; otherwise, it turns out that collective farms pay more taxes than individual farmers.

Concerning the purchase of machines. We must say that 50% of the machines are used by the collective farms in our country (the Selskosoyuz), for example, in the Samara province 58% of the tractors go through the collective farms, in Saratov ‐ 54% of all tractors. In Serdobsk district, 180 families were united in collective farms before the purchase of tractors, and after the purchase of tractors, another 153 families arrived. In Novo‐Uzenskoye, 91 families again arrived at 50 families in 10 collective farms after purchasing tractors. This unification of the population around tractors is the main fact. But when the deadline for payment for the tractor comes, when it is necessary to pay 2,000 and at such a time that is unbearable for the collective farms, the collective farms fall apart, go bankrupt. Local allied organizations of agricultural cooperatives are hiding behind the protocols of the provincial committee and the executive committee to demand the preservation of the collective farm. Itʹs time to end this position. When, in 1924, we sent tractors to the starving regions and the collectives organized around the tractors disintegrate due to the impossibility of paying for these tractors, it is not better to say that if the state has X rubles that are not enough to satisfy all collective farms with tractors, then it is better tractors to give less, but create possible terms of payment. And this question raised by Comrade Ancelovich, a question that must not be concealed, the question of a gradual transition in the collective farms themselves from lower to higher forms, should be considered only from the point of view of which economic forms give the best effect. If we can prove that the form of a commune gives a higher effect in terms of labor productivity, in terms of accumulation, etc., than the form of partnership, we will create a psychological prerequisite for expanding the transition to this form. And now the danger pointed out by Kaminsky is that the peasant goes, for example, to a partnership for joint cultivation of the land with his own equipment, and he has to pay for the worker, with a correction factor for a plow, for a mower, for a horse. Here the Party faces a tremendous danger that accumulation will go not through the public channel, but through the sole channel. It is necessary that this process was not a process of individual accumulation, but of a social one.

A few words on the organizational issue. Comrade Belenky will speak about this in more detail here. The question boils down to the fact that collective farms, which are included in the system in tens of thousands, must be properly maintained; they say that collective farm unions should be created separately in the center and in the localities, next to the agricultural unions. cooperation, and, of course, isolated from the rest of the system. This is fundamentally wrong. In the process of marketing the oil of the collective farms and the butter‐making artel is the same oil. The Oil Center for the Sale of Oil on Collective Farms cannot be opposed to the Union of Collective Farms. This is confusion. And from an organizational point of view, is it correct to oppose collective farms, of which 10,000 are members of unions (and there are 20,000 of them out of the total number of 35,000 primary cooperatives), to the rest of the system. We say that local associations of collective farms for servicing by agronomists, bookkeepers, etc. it is necessary to create, but why is the center here? Such a center has nothing to do with production services, this is the business of local associations, so the issue of the center should not be confused with the issue of production services, letʹs confine ourselves to local cluster associations, we will not talk about some kind of ʺproductionʺ center. In this respect, the example of the ʺCollectivistʺ magazine is very interesting.51, it is necessary and useful, but it gives a loss, which is repaid from the general funds of agricultural cooperation. Many unions will be happy to get rid of the collective farms, but this vanguard section of the general agricultural movement is not in our interests. cooperation to remove from the system and isolate this part from the entire agricultural sector. cooperation.

Rykov (chairman). Comrade Belenky has the floor.

Belenky. The collective farm movement is undoubtedly at a turning point. This change was caused by the appearance of a tractor and other large machines in the village.

The developing mechanization of agriculture provides a technical basis for the collective‐farm movement, ensures the stability of this movement, and creates the necessary prerequisites for its further development.

The current situation and the immediate tasks in the field of collective farming are determined, it seems to me, primarily by this basic fact.

Until recently, collective farm construction developed mainly on the basis of horselessness and lack of inventory, being often the only possible form of survival for the weakest low‐power farms.

In particular, the rise of the collective farm movement in 1924 was caused mainly by the massive ruin of the peasantry in the regions affected by crop failure. These farms combined property and labor so that through joint efforts it would be easier to get out of poverty, and often fell apart as soon as they managed to get on their feet.

A distinctive feature of such associations was their extreme instability. As the collective farms become mechanized, the situation changes. Collective farms are getting on their feet, starting to get stronger and develop.

At the same time, along with the poor associations, a new type of collective farm appears, developing on the basis of the growth of the peasant economy and its technical progress.

The collective farm movement is taking over new strata of the countryside, and the social composition of the collective farms is changing noticeably. Along with the poor peasant, the middle peasant and, to a certain extent, even the well‐to‐do peasant begin to go to the collective farm. There is one who wants to use a large machine in his household. If it is almost impossible to create a stable collective farm without a large machine, then, on the other hand, independent use of the machine is impossible for the overwhelming majority of peasant farms outside the collective farm. This determines the inevitability of further growth of collective farms as the technical development of agricultural production proceeds. production and their gradual coverage along with the poor and middle peasants of the village.

Rykov. And machine partnerships?

Belenky. I also mean them. The type of collective farm changes, and machine partnership and artel for joint cultivation of the land become its predominant form. Over the past two years, the growth of the collective farm movement has almost entirely been attributed to these types of collective farms. In connection with the change in the social composition of collective farms in the collective farm movement, there is a struggle between various groups of the peasantry. A kulak is trying to penetrate the collective farms. There are a large number of pseudo‐collective farms; there are undoubtedly more pseudo‐associations among collective farms than in all other types of cooperation. There are cases when the most unbridled exploitation is hidden under the guise of collective farms. These facts, which are inevitable in the future, must be constantly borne in mind.

The Party must closely follow the development of collective‐farm development and, by the appropriate policy, guide it along the line of embracing and raising the poor and middle peasant masses of the countryside.

The pace and nature of the development of the collective‐farm movement will depend to a great extent on how and by whom the supply of agricultural machines to the countryside is carried out.

The main task in this area is to make agricultural co‐operatives the main vehicle to the countryside. Only under these conditions will the machine be an instrument of production cooperation and collectivization of the peasant economy.

At present, far from all is well in this area.

Who is currently engaged in the machine supply with us? Mainly Gosselsklad, Selmashsindikat, Gostorg 52, etc. The rural union and local unions of agricultural cooperatives still occupy an insignificant place in this work. Agricultural cooperation has actually been ousted from this area by state trade. As a result, we are engaged in a simple trade in agricultural machines, instead of being engaged in an organized supply of machines and production cooperation on this basis of the peasant population.

It is necessary to help agricultural cooperatives in every possible way to develop and rationalize their activities in this area. It is necessary to make it the main importer of agricultural products. machines and tools and the main conductor of the products of our industry. This requires certain directives, a certain policy in the field of machine supply.

It is impossible to provide a solution to this issue of competition between agricultural cooperation and state trade. It must be said frankly that the competitiveness of cooperation is extremely limited by its financial situation. Moreover, the state trade organizations, conducting a simple trade in machines, are spared the huge costs and economic difficulties associated with the organizational tasks of agricultural cooperation. We are not faced with any tasks of uniting the population, organizing the poor, collectivizing peasant production, etc. Without much support, without genuine help from agriculturalists. the cooperation will not be able to cope with the immense tasks facing it in this area.

Today we were reproached for not doing much of the collective farms, this is true. But it should be borne in mind that the role of agriculturalists.            cooperation         in            collective‐farm   construction depends primarily on the place it occupies in the production supply of the countryside, especially in the mechanization of the countryside.

Meanwhile, S.‐kh. cooperation was knocked out of these positions, as I have already said, largely by the efforts of the NKZ, which seeks to concentrate these functions in its own apparatus ‐ the Gossel warehouse.

Svidersky. This is where the dog is buried.

Belenky. Yes, comrade. Svidersky, the dog is buried in this, because the question cannot be put in such a way that the Selskosoyuz should be engaged in organizing machine associations, while the Gosselsklad will be engaged in machine supply.

Organizational work in this area, as in other areas of cooperation, is inseparable from economic work. Strengthening the role of agricultural    cooperation         in            the          field       of            machine               supply, strengthening its ties with the corresponding branches of the state industry, regulating its relationship with the state trade, and, finally, developing long‐term lending to collectives ‐ these are the most important conditions for the successful development of agricultural activities. cooperation in the field of collective farming.

In particular, regarding the state industry. Agricultural cooperatives were able to closely contact the state industry only through sales. And, on the contrary, she has hardly had time to get in touch with the state industry through the supply line.

Along this line, which is of paramount importance from the point of view of production cooperation in the countryside, agricultural cooperatives still experience almost no organized assistance and the organizing influence of state industry.

Much needs to be corrected and improved in this direction.

There is no need to talk about a loan, because in practice it can be considered that it is completely absent.

Comrade Shefler, for some reason, gave the example of a collective farm whose debt equals 60,000 rubles. Meanwhile, the average debt of one collective farm is only about 200 rubles.

Svidersky. And the Selkhozbank must be given to you.

Belenky. The issue of lending to collective farms is undoubtedly one of the central issues. Along the way, I must remind you that the resolution of the Central Committee on the formation of a special fund for lending to collective farms has not yet been fulfilled 53 (call from the chairman).

Rykov. Time is up.

Belenky. Allow one more minute.

Speaking of collective farm construction, we must raise the main question of how to link the tasks of collectivizing peasant production with the general movement of agricultural cooperation.

Collective farms currently unite about 1 million people. Agricultural cooperation as a whole unites about 30‐35 million.

Under these conditions, the success of the collectivization of agriculture will depend, first of all, on how much we are able to practically find the ways of transition from the simplest mass forms of cooperation of the peasant population in the area of sales, supply, credit, etc. to the highest forms of industrial cooperation.

Are these transition paths outlined in practice? Is the gradual development of a cooperative into a collective farm really taking place? It seems to me that the experience of cooperative construction allows us to give a positive answer to this question.

Practice has revealed two types of large‐scale farming in our cooperative construction: collective farms are the most developed and complete form of large‐scale farming, and production and marketing associations are a transitional form of the household system of large‐scale farming. As an example of the second type, we often cite beet‐growing cooperation. Indeed, sugar beet value chains are the purest example of a large‐scale household system. The production and marketing of beets is regulated by the planned needs of the state sugar industry, which in modern conditions is the only consumer of beets.

The beet grower works for the state industry according to the plan and preliminary order of the state industry, which determines in advance the required sowing area, the required quantity and quality of products, the conditions of sale and, to a large extent, also the methods of production. In its agreements with beet growersʹ associations, the state industry establishes methods of land cultivation, sowing, harvesting, and so on. The sugar industry is forcing beet growers to use the most rational production methods, supplying them with improved seeds and large machines.

As a result, beet‐growing associations are now widely practicing collective cultivation of the land and collective production of sowing. These associations thus provide us with a vivid example of the development of a sales cooperative under the leadership of industry into a collective farm.

This example clearly reveals new mass ways of collective‐farm development and defines our tasks in this area.

Elements of the collective economy are now found in all types of agricultural cooperation, mainly in the form of collective enterprises of industrial, auxiliary, and agricultural value (public plant for the processing of milk, potatoes, breeding center, common tractor, thresher, etc.).

Collectivization in these types of cooperation covers only individual production processes, developing, as a general rule, in close connection and on the basis of the industrialization of agricultural production.

The collectivization of the peasant economy is thus inextricably linked with the development of cooperative industry, land reclamation, etc.

A few words in conclusion on the organizational issue.

We object to the creation of a center and collective farm unions with operational functions.

This would mean pulling the collective farms back instead of going forward together with the entire movement.

Agricultural cooperation is developing along the line of specialization, and someone argued the need to create a special center for collective farms by the existence of the Oil Center, Flax Center, etc.

But let me ask you how the collective farms will sell their products: butter, flax, bread? Through the Oil Center, Flax Center, Bread Center 54 or through your universal union? Is it possible, on the other hand, to put the question in such a way that the collective farms create their own Bread Center, their own Oil Center, etc., in other words, would duplicate the entire agricultural system? cooperation.

Hence, it is clear that the creation of a center and collective farm unions with operational functions not only does not follow from the specialization of agricultural cooperation, but fundamentally contradicts it.

This would mean placing the economic service of the collective farms in the least rational conditions and hindering their development. It should also be borne in mind that the withdrawal of collective farms from the existing production and marketing systems would mean the departure of the most advanced elements of the countryside, which would be an undoubted disadvantage both politically and economically.

Collective farms need an organizational center. This is undeniable. Such exists in embryo in the form of the All‐Union Council of Collective Farms. It is necessary to formalize this body as the leading center of the collective farms and create appropriate local units with a developed collective farm movement.

Chairman. Comrade has the floor. Latsis.

Latsis. We find an assessment of Comrade Rositaʹs report in the written report of the RCT. On the first page we read literally the following (reads) 55. After that, to deliver the speech that we have heard from Comrade Rosita is tantamount to the speech of the prosecutor of a hostile class who pulls data by the hair. Look only at the actual state of affairs.

Rykov. But the hostile class has not only a prosecutor, but also lawyers.

Latsis.The senior link that comrade Rosit is staying at is NKZem. It is wrong to say that NKZem paid little attention to the work of collective farms, that there were many omissions on the part of NKZem. All bodies know with what persistence Alexander Petrovich Smirnov sought in all party and Soviet organizations to pay attention to state farms, to their construction and financing. What were the state farms like when people started to pay attention to them? It cannot be said, as some do, that the state farms at that time were landlord estates. It wonʹt be right. The revolution swept through them, and most of the landownersʹ estates, turned into state farms, found themselves without forest lands, without living and dead implements, without subsidiary enterprises, without equipment, with destroyed buildings, etc. This is what the state farms inherited. If at that time they were given working capital and there were fixed capital, they would not have to talk about now. They would be up to par. The RCT itself is now saying that there are already great achievements. Who achieved these achievements? Of course, relying on government agencies. Through whom did NKZem act in this work? Through the same syndicate, which here the speaker from the RCI hayal. None other than the Gosselsyndikat through NKZem, with the corresponding petitions and draft decrees, was included in all party and Soviet authorities. And when they tried to show here that the syndicate is a small shop, this, comrades, is not true. We can say that the syndicate should only be a sales and supply organization, but it was not such an organization. In addition to sales and supply functions, he also organized state farms, led them, instructed them. The RCT forgot this in their surveys and forgot to mention it here. Achievements in the field of state farm construction we have to a large extent, because the Gosselsyndikat worked on this under the directives of NKZem. The work in this direction was carried out by the Gosselsyndikat. But, after all, the creator of this syndicate, Comrade Shefler, wrote to the Gosselsyndikat 5 million of fixed capital. Did you give us these 5 million of fixed capital? No, they didn’t give us, instead they gave us an old collapsed tractor scrap. We did not receive 5 million of fixed capital, which, of course, forced us to revise the charter. How could such an organization be published, supplying 5 million of fixed capital and not giving it? How could this be done? You cannot imagine the situation in which the workers found themselves working there according to directives from above.

Today the question is being raised whether the Gosselsyndikat is needed or not. The RCT, based on its materials and surveys, comes to the conclusion that a syndicate is needed and that it is impossible to work without it.

Rykov. Why a small shop?

Latsis. When we did not have any sources of livelihood, then it was necessary to find some sources.

Rykov. Is the loss from small shops a source of funds?

Latsis. Comrade Rykov, there was a time when there was no loss from these small shops, and they were a source of funds. Of course, this was a wrong step, we are aware of this, but no one knew about it in advance. We confess to this mistake. Further, it was said here that the syndicate withheld 3 million of working capital. This is a complete lie. For all these years, until the 25th year, the entire system of trusted state farms received 3 million 800 thousand rubles. But where did these figures come from that the syndicate allegedly withheld 3 million loans. Tractors GOMZe 56 were released to orderby 1 million rubles. Order on behalf of the syndicate, on behalf of the trusts. The money is given to the syndicate and the syndicate pays for these tractors. Of course, if this counts as withholding loans, you will count many more, but that would be a wrong count. Of course, it is absolutely impossible to operate with such figures here. Comrade Shefler pointed out that we do not have a system of trusted state farms. This is not true. The SNK decree established a firm system of trusted state farms. We, of course, had confusion in this regard, but now a certain order has been established. We have carried out the following groups of state farms: agricultural, production, educational, assigned to educational institutions, experimental and assigned state farms, which are assigned to factories, to plants, to collectives, to cooperatives. These latter, in fact, are state land property, which is either given for free use, or given for rent. We have the face of state farms. We build our agricultural work on agricultural state farms, not on assigned ones.

Tractorization. I have already indicated that we made an attempt to use our domestic machine‐building industry and ordered our factories to build 1000 tractors. We received 105 tractors, but when we wanted to get the rest of the tractors, the places shouted not to give these tractors, they are worthless, etc. We have 750 tractors working on the state farms of the RSFSR, and with the trash that we have, this number reaches 1050 tractors. This is an extremely insignificant percentage of the total traction force, about 3%. In this respect, we made very little progress and could not make any more progress, because we did not have the means to obtain tractors from abroad, and the experience of building tractors at our machinebuilding plants was not successful.

The question of what the state farms should be like, what their tasks are, has been resolved, and today it is not worth talking about it. It remains for us to dwell on the issue of lending. Comrade Shefler says the point is not that there is no credit. This is where our dispute lies. I argue that neither the grassroots network nor the central network can function without being given fixed capital and working capital. If this is not given, it will be necessary to say bluntly, close the trusts and close the syndicate, put people working in this business on another job.

Stalin. Overheads.

Latsis. I do not deny that the overhead is high. Overhead costs are 77 kopecks. tithing. When examining the RCT, it does the wrong thing; it takes state farms, excluding industrial enterprises, and calculates an average of 15 thousand rubles. to the state farm. It is not right. After all, the state farm is the state farm. There are state farms with large, fixed capital, subsidiary enterprises and working capital. One such state farm, for example, a farm, gives 6 million rubles turnover per year. When you approach such a sovkhoz with such a calculation, <as> the RCT does it and calculates overhead costs only for a tithe of land, then this turns out to be incorrect, the calculation is incorrect. According to our calculations, it turns out that the overhead costs of the North Caucasian state farms are 77 kopecks tithing. The overhead costs are certainly still high, but this is due to the reasons which I pointed out to you. There was no capital with which to carry out the work.

Rykov. Now I have been recorded * (* The text is reproduced from the uncorrected transcript.).

Here the speaker and the representative of the RCI pointed out that the Orgburo had established a permanent fund, a permanently restored loan fund of 5 million rubles, and this was not carried out in the Soviet order. I requested a certificate, it turned out that the order had not been executed. It was not carried out by the STO at the suggestion of Comrade. Sokolnikov when he was the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Finance. I can point to a couple of documents that talk about this. (Some words cannot be heard.) It seems that the Politburo decided that the decisions of a financial nature in relation to the Soviet authorities should not be 57... I want to point out the difficulties we faced, mainly in the field of collective farm development. This business can be quickly put on its feet if we switch to large benefits, exclusive benefits to the communes and exceptional benefits in terms of loans or the transfer of a whole range of equipment, locomotives, etc. to them. for free, with inclusion in the fixed capital ... * (* So in the document)

Until now, we in the Labor and Defense Council and the USSR Council of Peopleʹs Commissars had great doubts. Two years ago, there was great discontent among the peasants, discontent, which was caused by the benefits that were given to the communes. The communes began to organize solely in order to get a piece of state funds. When we very much reduced the tax for the communes, exempted them from the tax, then among the peasants there was discontent, why such injustice, why tax is collected from the peasants, but not from the communes, and the slogan was thrown out: ʺDown with the communes!ʺ So, this principle, itʹs hardly good. Indeed, in every village you can find 10‐15 households that will agree to receive state money, receive a tractor from the state, receive land for free from the state and organize a commune. In this way, communes can be organized very quickly throughout the Union. The peasants, those who will not enter the commune, will declare that we are united by a single agricultural. tax is levied, but not communes. Therefore, we could not agree to give the communes tractors, horses, etc. for free, because any peasant can say why he is not given. After all, a commune needs to be built on the basis of experience; you canʹt give it everything right away. In addition, I was very dubious about attempts from the center to lead. We have no data on how the commune should be organized, no experience in this regard. You can collect a dozen agronomists to paint a picture, but will it be correct or not? It seems to me that it is better to act on the basis of experience here. We do not have enough experience yet, the available experience has not been sufficiently studied yet, and there is no summary about how to organize a commune, in this area has not been and is not. In this respect, the collective farms are much more homeless. It would be wrong to organize a center that would not take over operational tasks. It will take many more years to take into account all the experience of how to build a commune, which path to follow. Until now, we have no summary data on this, absolutely nothing. In my opinion, it is wrong to create a central body devoid of any operational functions. Comrade Belenky spoke correctly about the difficulties. Difficulties, I must say, in this matter we have exceptional. We discussed the question of agricultural production machines when non‐payment began at the factories of agricultural enterprises machines. I was presented with a certificate then that the cars were in the factories, that the peasants did not have the money to buy them. It turned out that we threw out many tens of millions, to finance a loan for the sale of these machines. We made a decision to prohibit the sale of tractors for cash, but to sell them only to peasants on credit, to make installments, but to prohibit selling for cash. Our financial situation is such that we cannot give them away to collective farms for free. When I tackled this issue and saw that there really was no money to organize sufficient credit, I gave advice that some part can be sold, otherwise we will have to cut production.

Kamenev. What part?

Rykov. I don’t remember which part, but I allowed some part to be sold, because otherwise we will not get out of the situation. Keep in mind that in connection with the question of the sale of cars and loans, many tens of millions are tied to them. This business requires many tens of millions. When Comrade Belenky argues that cars need to be sold with preferential loans, and so on, that 60 million are needed for this business, then we must say that we do not have this money. With regard to credit, if we give credit to individual peasants for two years and communes for ten years, there will be some incentive for organizing communes and there will be some platform for agitation in favor of communes. In this matter, it is necessary to take into account the political aspect. A number of privileges have already been granted to communes by a resolution of the Labor and Defense Council 58... Should we go further down this path in order to form the organization of the communes, providing them with such privileges that will cause hatred of the peasants towards the communes, as it was before? If we follow this path, then the communes will not be organized in order to really organize the commune, but only in order to get a privilege, to get a tractor, etc., after which the communes will disintegrate. In relation to the communes, we forbade taking taxes above the average rate and confined them to poor peasants, i.e., we take from them as much as from the sole poor man. Such a thing has been done in relation to the communes. But here we run the risk that the peasants will go to the commune solely because of the benefits, and when the benefits are received, the communes will crumble. Therefore, regarding the land, we decided that in the form of experience for two years they receive the land on lease on a general basis, and after that time it goes to them. That is, we have established a two‐year experience so that communes are not organized just to get funds from the state. Within two years the commune must justify itself.

When these two years expire, they existed badly or well, they receive this land for themselves without any payment. This is the basis that was in the SRT, which determined the solutions that are proposed in the materials that are distributed here. It says that with regard to privileges to give privileges to the communes, not opposing these privileges in size to those received by the poor, the lower stratum of the middle peasants, to keep the state farms at approximately this level.

Comrade has the floor. Grushevsky.

Grushevsky. I, comrades, have something to do with the big agricultural. production in Ukraine and will use materials from Ukrainian state farms.

For a correct assessment of the economic state of large‐scale agricultural production and its prospects, it is necessary to take into account certain features that characterize the place of large‐scale agricultural production. production in Soviet conditions, its difference from industry.

1.                   If in the field of industry, the state sets itself the task of further expansion, then in the field of large agricultural. there is no production of these prospects. We are now faced with the following fact: since in the Ukraine, by the latest decree, all local lands are given to the peasantry, now there are only islands of large agricultural. production. Thus, state farms are limited to further development. We will not take away the land from the peasants, the conversation can only go about reducing this area. This means that we have no prospects for development.

2.                   If in the sphere of industry, the state is a monopoly both in respect of production and in respect of price policy, then in the sphere of large‐scale agriculture. of production, which is a grain in the mass of multimillion peasant farms, we are not monopolists, and in the area of prices we are regulated by the peasant market.

3.                   The third circumstance is rather serious. If the moment of concentration has come in the field of industry, if the rubber industry is concentrated in one center, metallurgical in another, etc., then in the area of large agricultural. production we have a complete inconsistency. What departments, institutions have not tried to have and manage state farms, starting from NKZdrav, NKPros and ending with industry.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? First, from the premise that the state farms have no prospects to move towards expansion, the party must raise the question and answer it, what are we going to give the remaining land to the peasantry, or is this the last position that we will keep?

Stalin. What land, state farm?

Grushevsky. State farm. For without this, no planned normal economy is possible. Not a single state farm, not knowing for sure whether the land will be taken from it, can throw scanty funds and invest in basic costs.

What is the conclusion from the fact that we are not monopolists in production? Everybody states that we now have in large agricultural. production seems to be an achievement and even under these conditions ‐ an income, and the experience of Ukraine shows that of the 10 million fixed capital of trusted state farms, up to 66% are in buildings and only 30‐40% in other types, and if this year the balance on On January 1, 1926, the state farms gave [560]735 thousand, rub. net profit, or 15% to the active part of the fixed capital, I think this is very good. If we analyze our fixed capital, its most active part is living and dead inventory, we will see that there are 65% of older oxen. The production is not mechanized. The state of living equipment determines both the general productivity of labor and the productivity of human labor, for if the ox moves at a speed of 1.5 versts per hour, then a person will no longer pass. Thus, a bad ox increases the cost of production, and if even under these conditions a real profit is obtained, then I pose another question: even if we do not take into account the fact that state farms are the main socialist form in agriculture, then state farms are worth the state to invest in them., even for purely economic reasons, for without capital the state farms will drag out a miserable existence. State farms represent state industry in the countryside, state farmlands are located in the midst of peasant farms, state farm fields border on peasant fields. All the work and life of the state farm takes place in full view of the peasantry; in short, the peasantry checks the work of the state farms. If, without capital, on these old oxen, on these shattered implements, we get a low harvest, we thereby discredit ourselves in the eyes of the peasantry. Conversely, if a state farm produces a good harvest, it deserves authority. The peasant is a realist, he does not trust the agronomist only at his word, he tests it in practice. If our manager came out early to sow oats and got a good harvest, the peasantry would better believe him than the agronomist. The attitude of the peasantry to state farms, we do not have negative from my direct experience in Ukraine. We have a bad attitude where the work is badly done. We also usually have a bad attitude on the part of the fist. Landownersʹ lands that could have been acquired by a kulak not under Soviet rule are now on state farms. The stronger the state farms, the more the first is angry with them. The poor and middle peasant population, which cannot even embrace their own land, does not need the land of the state farm, and only the top of the village is the direct enemy of the state farms.

The next point, which I think it is necessary to dwell on, is the question of the loan. To the greatest regret, despite all the decisions on the part of the Soviet and party bodies, there is no system that would consider it necessary to provide loans to state farms. Industry says that you are agriculture, and agricultural banks say that we are created for loans to cooperative peasant farms. [There is no place for us, because for all the years such a song has been heard about state farms.] State farms have not found a firm place in the credit system. In everyday life, state farms are called a noble widow, a Soviet noble widow who begs everywhere. And they call them what they deserve. It does not have a definite place, and therefore it is quite natural until this song will exist, until the real place of a major agricultural is indicated. production (call from the chairman). Iʹm finishing now. Until then, we will arouse anger on the part of the peasantry, thanks to weakness, we will support disbelief in state farms, in these socialist forms of agriculture. The state farms demand one thing, that they be treated no worse than cooperative peasant farms or individual peasant farms. We have up to 25% of the mechanical traction force, why donʹt we have more, because we are not sold for our money. When selling tractors to cooperative farms, to individual farms, they give a loan for two years, and they demand from us 40% in cash, and the rest after the first harvest. We will not be able to pay for expensive cars without credit with a slow circulation of capital in agriculture (once every 13 months). Even American farmers are unable to buy such expensive machines as tractors under these conditions.

Comrades, I may express a naive thought here, but I got real satisfaction from the fact that the state farm question received sufficient attention from the Politburo, because, to my great regret, they approach this question, stop and step back, it does not move forward ... Let today, once and for all, speak out on it and confirm all the directives that exist in this regard, [there will be no more conversations in the tones of social security] and once and for all put an end to the liquidationist and socialist sentiments in the field of the state farm question.

Rykov. Kalinin has the floor.

Kalinin * (* Mikhail Kalininʹs speech was recorded unsatisfactorily. This is evidenced by the remarks he made during the editing of the transcript. which he noted: ʺLooks like an experienced stenographer. M.K.ʺ RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 163. D. 696. L. 177, 178.). Due to the limited time, I will focus only on state farms. I am amazed that in their reports the comrades did not dwell on the work question, even Ancelovich, and yet this is one of the most important fundamental questions.

Voice. We will draw conclusions.

Kalinin. And I must say frankly, one of the strongest brakes in the development of state farms. State farms must compete with peasant farming; they do not have the kind of proletariat that factories and mills have, in state farms agricultural. the proletariat is still being created. Under the landowners, we did not have agricultural. proletariat, the most unadapted peasants went to work for the landowner.

Voice. You canʹt say that.

Voice. This is not true.

Stalin. How will he take up the car?

Kalinin. [Donʹt worry, I am not taking the person who is in our Latvia. In Estonia and Latvia, there were also developed workers who went to state farms.] The machine has only one manager, and there are dozens of workers on the estate. I exclude Latvia and Estonia, where farming was highly developed. This is very natural, do not forget that the average pay was 50‐70 rubles. [these 50 rubles. received from the landowner] from Yegoriev day until the end of November 59.

Trotsky. Where are these farms?

Voice. The seasonal workers received 150 rubles for the harvest.

Kalinin. If you take tobacco workers who went to tobacco plantations, then, of course, they earned more, well, but in general 70 ‐ this is in extreme cases, and during the winter they received no more than 15‐20 rubles. S.‐kh. The proletariat, as a proletariat, is only now being created in our country, and the work of the All‐Served Land Forestry and the state farm, it consists in doing this second work, it is establishing agricultural production. large‐scale state production, and it is now creating really agricultural. proletariat. But when you create the proletariat, then in this group of the proletariat, in my opinion, there should be a stronger selection than in factories and factories, and accordingly, the right to dismiss and the right to regulate the administration of state farms should be strengthened. Factory committees are better, they are more connected with production, and on state farms, dismissal, I experienced from my own experience, is a huge difficulty.

Voice. We canceled overtime.

Kalinin. [The rights of managers are equally important.]

Voice. We have.

Kalinin. [You have, but the hay is lost. I believe that here, too, the law should be strengthened, in a word]. I think, if there is a difference between communes and state farms, it is that communes have cheaper labor, and state farms are organizationally stronger. I believe that NKZem and the heads of state farms should work on this issue and give a corresponding proposal. Second question. It is necessary to reduce the cost of credit, after all, agricultural products at their market prices, especially those products that the state especially needs, like grain bread, they are cheaper than manufactured goods. And the state farms, in order to reduce the cost of their production, must have cheap credit, such a directive must be given. In any case, they should not be higher than 6% per annum. Then, it seems to me, the state farms need to be transferred to the state account.

Voice. They are translated.

Kalinin. I dont know. On a business account with the right of independence, which factory enterprises have, which are on the state account. I consider it necessary to select managers based on their success. I must say that we do not select managers based on the success of the manager, and those managers who are economically successful are often removed rather than useless. With great difficulty we had to defend it.

Voice. Why?

Kalinin. This is done because a good owner is demanding, in agriculture you need a person who would not work for himself, at a factory a person can work nothing for himself, at a factory you donʹt want to, you do the work, the car turned around, put the shells in, thereʹs nothing you can do about it. Therefore, I believe that the selection of managers should be based primarily on success. Then it is necessary to take a measure so that state farms have a deduction rate for the maintenance of higher authorities. Now what happens? For state farms that are successful, their success is delayed by the fact that they are sucked more, and it is necessary that the manager sees that greater success ensures more funds in the economy. [This is a quantitative point of view of equalization and the general legal point of view may not be good.]

Kamenev. [Equality and statehood are two different things.]

Kalinin. [The point of view of statehood ‐ if one does not have enough money, and in the other there is left, it is necessary to transfer there, but the point of view of pushing the leaders ‐ it is necessary to know that his money will go to the maintenance of the apparatus, will go to the state farm]. If the rate of deduction is not enough, it must be adopted by the state or local budget at its own expense. For example, Gosselsindikat if it is not enough for the maintenance of standards contributions, which will be developed, it is necessary to transfer the remaining amount to the state budget, gubtrest ‐ to the local budget [unless the syndicate content is not enough to dismiss in the state. budget, etc., these are the four measures that I thought needed to be done].

Here are four measures that I think it will be useful to take.

Two words in conclusion. I have already written about this and I believe that we need to support the state farms by all means and ways. I believe that it is not true that the state farms will not grow. Maybe in Ukraine, where there is little land, but why prejudge those methods and opportunities that the state has a lot.

If we see that the state farm tithe gives twice as much as the peasant tithe, then perhaps it will be easier for us to take an entire small village for full maintenance and then dissipate it. Therefore, the pessimism introduced by the Ukrainian, as if there are no prospects, is wrong. The main thing is to make the state farms profitable; it is necessary that the tithe of the state farm should give twice the peasant tithe. And once this is done, the forms will be easily found.

Rykov (chairman). Comrade Rosit has the floor.

Rosit. I will dwell on some issues, in particular, on the speech of Comrade Latsis. A few words about the statute of the Gosselsyndikat. Comrade Latsis abuses one decision of the STO of February 2, 22nd, when, in fact, the Gosselindikat was assigned functions not only of a sales and supply, but also of a production nature. But after 1922, I have already referred to this and it has not been canceled, by the decree of the All‐Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars on March 30, 1925, it was decided that direct management of state farms in the form of general management leadership and control is given to NKZem, and the Gosselindikat is left with wholesale sales and supply 60... This was said at the beginning of the 25th year and has not yet been carried out. This displacement of functions that belong to NKZem and which cannot be transferred to Gosselsyndikat is practically impractical. State farms cannot be managed from Moscow. If we said that trusts from the gubernia should not squeeze individual state farms, then all the more this applies to the Gosselsyndikat as a union center. If you want to lead in this way, then it is wrong, it is ruining the business.

About targeted loans. You see, Comrade Latsis, you are nodding about the fact that the RCT included <in> targeted loans that were not used for their intended purpose, part of the tractor loans. But you in the Gosselsyndikat do not have any permission to spend these tractor credits for other purposes other than their intended purpose. I can read exactly what happened: in 1924‐25 the Gosselsyndikat withheld 807,000 rubles. from a loan for the purchase of tractors (out of 1,700 thousand rubles), and pledged tractors bought from Gostorg; 1,764,000 rubles were withheld from the loan issued by the State Spirit for distilling. You say that you have organized and supplied some of the inventory for the

distilleries. This is partly true, but only partly. Finally, from the seed loan of 27,000 rubles, about 2.5 million rubles are obtained. from targeted loans 1924‐25

You handle millions of targeted loans so easily, as if this does not concern you at all as chairman of the board of Gosselsyndikat. Before that, you had withheld about 600,000 rubles, which you had no right to use the way you used them.

That is the entire amount of withheld targeted loans of about 3 million rubles. on January 1, 1926, it mostly went into retail with you, at a time when your retail stores grew from 13 to 45. You look at it very easily. Where did you get such a right to do so, given the general poverty of the state farms and the lack of loans?

Now I will dwell on some issues. Comrade In this case, Latsis tried to discredit me as a co‐rapporteur so much when I spoke about the overhead costs for the work of the Gosselsyndikat, about state farm construction, as if I were saying this as a prosecutor of an alien class against state farms. I find it difficult to find a name for such a trick. It is not enough to say that this is stupidity, it is just insolence. When you, in the supreme body of the Party, keep silent about the shortcomings of the body you are leading, and I want to point out and discover these shortcomings, you say that I am acting as a prosecutor of an alien class. This is how you understand your tasks and economy mode. It turns out that the one who discovers that you have smashed more than a million direct losses with your retail trade (also earmarked funds) is a prosecutor of an alien class. What are you ‐ a little child?

Rykov. Right.

Rosit. Excuse me, I don’t touch on the criminal side of the work of the syndicate, I’m taking it here. And the RCP at one time approached very gently: the RCP instructed you and NKZem to take measures in order to check in a month what has been adopted to eliminate all this. But from this picture I will cite one fact, a smaller one, but characteristic of how you supplied the state farms with breeding animals. Here is a representative of the Moscow Committee 61maybe he does not know this separate fact concerning the Moscow state farms right there under the syndicateʹs noses: “Of the 80 head of pedigree cows supplied, 40 heads had to be slaughtered as a hopeless marriage, 38 heads were classified as medium‐quality user cattle and only two heads were classified to the tribal group ʺ. This is how you supplied the Moscow state farms with breeding animals. Out of 80, only 2 heads are fit. You ended up with a lawsuit on this basis, according to which the Seltrest syndicate filed a claim for 5,000 rubles. You performed these operations at a loss for yourself and for Seltrest, what is it? And under such conditions, the one who speaks openly, raises the question of the inadmissibility of such your work and such your mistakes, that prosecutor of an alien class. You turned things upside down. What kind of friend of the state farms are you, if I may say so, if you do not take seriously the overhead costs of state farms, do not study them, and even the very formulation of the question about them you think was inspired by a hostile class? State farms, I think, should be protected from defenders like you. In this case, it is not superfluous to recall the resolution of the RCI, which says that the board of the Gosselsyndikat must be revised. Such a task was given to NKZem, and comrades who underestimate such things as overhead costs to change. What kind of boss is this, an executive who doesnʹt know his overhead? It is clear that under such conditions what kind of management of a syndicate can be. I will end on this and I think that here before us we had an example of handling frivolous not only with pennies, but also with millions. Itʹs not a small question when there is such general poverty. State farms need to be given loans, and I talked about this,

Stalin (very hard to hear) * (* IV Stalinʹs speech is reproduced from an uncorrected transcript. The transcript has a large number of omissions. RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 163. D. 696. L. 186‐192.) ... The question of large non‐capitalist agricultural enterprises is of tremendous importance to us. Three ways of organizing such noncapitalist enterprises are outlined here. The first path along the agricultural line cooperatives ... where the peasant works at home, but works for the state. We will not talk about this now. The second path is state farms, state organizations, the planting of large noncapitalist enterprises from above, by forces ... And the third path is collective farms, voluntary organizations. These are collective type organizations that represent and can represent large enterprises.

There are two ways ‐ collective farms and state farms.

About state farms. I think that first of all it is necessary to decisively declare and carry out an appropriate campaign so that ... the mood of the liquidation of our state farms was eliminated. We must decisively set a limit and say, we need state farms, we will develop them, and whoever doesn’t like it, let them ... State farms are a great thing for us both as demonstration enterprises, implanting new farming, and as strongholds for us in a village in the sense of a direct commercial ... It turns out that we have 26 million poods. grain this year may be thrown away by the state farms, this is no small matter for us. State farms can also be indicative institutions in the sense of imposing collective forms of production in the countryside. But it is necessary to arrange things so that the state farms are truly illustrative. And when determining the role of state farms, one must proceed from the fact that that state farms are a form of the future of agriculture, a large form of socialist economy, state farms must be supported in every possible way. And all talk about liquidating state farms, about squandering them must end. What is required from state farms? To be indicative. There are many defects in this part. ... materials are scarce, they are old; there is no such center that would unite the state farms; they are scattered over various organizations. The fact that there is a lot of overhead, it gives a lot of food for men to scold us. The fact that state farms have governing bodies ... Overhead costs and expenditures on the apparatus should play a decisive role in our policy. If we take the whole policy towards the country as a whole, it is clear that we must do something from the point of view of industrial development in general ... or we must reduce our staff, which will give at least 800 million rubles. annually. So, we have to choose: whether to lead the matter to the breakdown of the bloc with the peasantry or to reduce our apparatus a little. This is how the question stands and this is how it will stand.

... the main question about saving mode. If the question stands this way, then it should be applied to state farms. If the state farms are not representative institutions in the sense of ... apparatus, not a damn thing will come of it, everything that accumulates, all this will be squandered, will be plundered. It is necessary to pay attention to this in the resolution that will be adopted.

All sorts of credit benefits are needed for state farms. If a state farm is the embryo of a higher type of farming in the countryside, an embryo with a tremendous future, on which we pin great hopes, it is natural that credit should turn to face the state farms.

I see that comrade ... has no taste for this. ... all this is true, but are there many farms with ... This is not the point; you can always find fault with it. But if we pose the main question that state farms are the highest form of a developing economy, then it is obvious that credit benefits are absolutely necessary. How big? Itʹs a matter of counting. But what is given must be given, and what was given must be increased. Otherwise, the matter will go to squandering the state farms, which will create an enormous danger for our whole policy in the countryside.

About collective farms. This is especially bad. I wanted to talk about the central governing body, about the Gosselsyndikate. I am not quite sure that a centralized unifying body for supply and marketing is already needed for all the republics. Gosselsyndikat on paper is a syndicate center created on a voluntary basis for all state farms.

Kaminsky. Except for Transcaucasia.

Stalin.On the line of supply and sales. I stood for such a body to exist, but that it should have comparatively fewer functions than, for example, NKZem says about it, that it be a more flexible body, so that it does not stifle the initiative of republics and localities, and that it helps, but did not hinder the development of state farms, so that he did not replace local initiative with his command, but that he was an intermediary and controller in business, for example, obtaining a loan, in the installation and distribution of people necessary for state farms ‐ whether an accountant or another technician ‐ this is a big deal. In the village, where to get cultured people there is hard to get. Meanwhile, the Gosselsyndikat, if it becomes the center supplying the state farms and organizing their sales, it should also take up, among other things, the matter of supplying these state farms with people of the highest qualifications necessary for state farms. This is the kind of center

About collective farms. This is a very serious matter ‐ collective farms. On a voluntary basis, the poorest part, partly the middle peasant part, is organized into collective farms. Why is it organized? Of course, because there is no inventory. I think this is a factor that will drive the poorest part to collective farms. There is nothing wrong with that. People go for their own good. No poor man will go to a collective farm for an abstract idea, he will go there because he has no equipment and it is useful for him to unite in collective farms. This argument comes from poverty, from lack of inventory, this argument is not against collective farms, but for them.

Voice. Right.

Stalin.And it is necessary to support such voluntary associations of the poor and the lower strata of the middle peasant elements. Our situation is bad with the experience of accounting for the construction of collective farms. This experience is not combined, we do not have any central body that would deal with this, and therefore people wander in the dark, building collective farms along different lines, according to different types. It is necessary to create a center that would take into account the experience of building collective farms, how collective farms are built, how best to build them, how local people understand that an artel or machine partnership with a semi‐kulak character is no worse than a collective farm. Does everyone understand this? No, not all. On whose initiative are such machine partnerships created. On the initiative of more initiative people like the kulaks. If there is not some guiding center here to advise, instruct, I am afraid,

Fists and well‐to‐do people are smart, capable people, and they can use this practice for their own purposes. That is why I think that attention should be paid to this matter. this business, the business of building collective farms, is less organized, less studied than the business of state farms, there is any amount of confusion here, a sea of confusion, that is why it is not necessary to oppose the existence of a center for collective farms, a center generalizing experience, giving instructions, keeping records of what collective farms we have, what type of collective farms is developing, the center taking all this into account. Accounting for all this is needed, but we do not have such accounting. No one can guarantee that they are not mistaken here by 40 percent. We cannot do without the creation of such a center of control and generalizing experience, instructing, not financial and not operational. The creation of such a center is absolutely necessary in view of the confusion in the matter of collective‐farm development and in view of the weakness of the collective‐farm movement. This, of course, does not mean that at the bottom they must be separated from the agricultural cooperatives; it does not mean that the center must unite the supply functions of collective farms on an all‐Union scale. This is nonsense, of course. This does not mean that he should unite the efforts of collective farms on an all‐Union scale in the area of marketing. No. The creation of a non‐operational, control and instructor body at the top, which would take into account what is in quantitative terms, take into account the existing experience and generalize this experience, would make it the property of the center and which would direct this matter ‐ the question of creating such a body is most timely in view of the confusion that exists in collective‐farm development. Credit incentives are required for collective farms. Only with analysis it is necessary to act, which collective farms to give. Collectivist collective farms must be supported. Benefits for rent, tax and other things are required. The peasant must be told frankly that we prefer the collective‐farm form of construction, we prefer it more than your individual form of construction. We have to whisper in his ear that if you want to get out ‐ go to the collective farm. The peasant will, of course, not be happy, but we must say frankly that we give preference to such a form of management as the collective farm, that we put the collective farm in a privileged position, because this is the germ of a collective form of farming, the future is on their side and we support them. ... We must directly tell the peasant, whispering in his ear, that his form of management has no future. Here, benefits are absolutely necessary, and the creation of such a center that would solicit for collective farms, promote these issues in the center, control activities, take into account local experience, take into account what collective farms are, what types of collective farms, generalize all these data and make these generalizations the property of the center ‐ the creation of such a center is absolutely necessary. I think that we will have to create a commission that would take into account the volume of opinions and work out an appropriate draft resolution.

Rykov. Comrade has the floor. Trotsky.

Trotsky. It seemed to me in the speeches of some comrades, above all in the speech of Comrade Ancelovich, that the distribution of attention between the state and collective farms was not quite correct. It seemed to me, perhaps, I was mistaken here that Comrade Ancelovich connects the future of socialist agriculture only with state farms. Now they are collective farms and state farms; in terms of volume, they approximately balance each other. Collective and state farms seem to have about three million dessiatines. Here it was absolutely rightly pointed out that state farms can expand in the coming years, the coming decades can only be due to the expansion of the cultural area, i.e., land reclamation and other things.

Svidersky. These possibilities are not limited.

Trotsky. These possibilities, of course, are not limited, but they require the application of huge funds. We will proceed first of all along the line of intensification, along the line of technical improvement of land cultivation, and secondly, along the line of land reclamation on a large scale. So, in the next period, the collective farms that unite the peasant holdings have at least the same, and probably greater opportunities than the state farms.

But the issue is not solved only by the land area. In terms of management, agriculture is still incomparably less tolerant of centralized methods of management than industry. The questions of the organizational forms of socialist agriculture are still far from being resolved. How was it before, when the Marxist left wing and the opportunists before the revolution were arguing about the ability of agriculture to transition to higher forms? We stood on the fact, and it was right, that agriculture should undergo basically and most importantly the same evolution as industry, i.e., that agriculture should, in the process of industrialization, go to enterprises of a large, and then gigantic, in the future ‐ a national scale. But questions about the stages, about transitional forms and about management were not predetermined by anyone and could not be predetermined.

Why does state farms seem to be easier to graft in our low‐cultivated agricultural environment? Because it seems easier to resolve the issue of management by administrative means, by command. In this respect, the advantages of state farms are obvious, but the question of the interest and mutual control of workers in state farms is solved much worse than in communes. Meanwhile, one of the sources of bureaucratic management and work in general <is> lack of interest. They talk about womenʹs quarrels in collective farms. Why are they fighting? One says: “My husband did more work, and I have two children. You have three. ʺ This is, of course, a quarrelsome, pettybourgeois form of mutual control, which is determined by poverty and the like. But this is still a form of social control, donʹt be lazy, especially since you are multi‐family, etc. This mutual control is essential as an antidote to indifference. In industry, we cannot go to this. There, control is largely in the technique itself. This is not yet the case in agriculture. The personal and direct interest of the worker in the product of labor is of great importance there. I have seen in individual communes a transition to a more correct distribution of labor power into groups by branches of the economy. In addition to the main cadre of workers, field breeders, there are responsible and interested groups for cattle breeding, for gardening, for gardening, and so on.

Kaminsky. Internal specialization.

Trotsky. Yes. The board assigns tasks to these groups based on the experience of the past year, and if you pass this task, a well‐known prize is given. This, again, increases the immediate interest of all those involved.

Ancelovich. This is piecework.

Trotsky. Yes, if you like, piecework, but based on collective selfgovernment and direct interest, a system that does not require control from above. I would not consider it unexpected if in two‐ or three‐years labor productivity on collective farms turned out to be higher than on state farms. This is far from ruled out. I understand, comrade. Ancelovich, as chairman of the Union of Agricultural Workers, you direct your attention along the line of state farms. But the party and the state have the advantage that they have both state and collective farms and can make the necessary comparisons all the time. Competition with peasant farming is inevitable and obligatory for both of these forms. Of course, the eight‐hour working day ‐ this is the conquest of the revolution ‐ should be preserved on state farms too, but the flexibility associated with the seasonality of work, is achieved much more painlessly on collective farms on the basis of immediate interest. And in other respects, there is more flexibility in collective farms, it is provided not by the administrative discretion of the manager, but by mutual control and collectivity, which is created by harmony.

Kalinin. And interest.

Trotsky. I saw only four or five collective farms in Ukraine and the North Caucasus, and they amazed me with the activity of their cadres.

In most cases, these are young people, often former Red Army soldiers, ideological, who cover economic issues from all sides and consider themselves as pioneers in the field of socialist agriculture.

Now the question about overheads. Where will they be smaller? Again, apparently, on collective farms. The management of state farms is centralistic and thus causes more overhead costs. On collective farms, supervision from above is replaced by control from below. But collective farms, especially communes, demand from workers a higher initiative and culture. Whether these pros and cons will balance each other and how ‐ we do not yet know. Experience must be given the floor.

We have heard here that the peasants say: ʺIf you gave us these funds, we would do more for the same money.ʺ If the peasants say so with good reason, then this is a serious blow to the state farms. When will we be able to publish such a balance of state farms for the purpose of bringing together the mass of peasants ...?

Ancelovich. About agricultural cooperation?

Trotsky. ... we will finally secure the future of the state farms when we publish a balance that shows that we got a greater effect on one tithe and per unit of labor force than a good peasant economy, then the state farms won. But this has not yet been proven. It was said here that agricultural assistance from the state farms to the district peasantry, assistance with seeds, pedigree cattle and others, is not profitable for the state farms. I do not know how the calculations are made technically, but it is clear that this is the stateʹs business. If the state farms suffer a loss on this, then this is fundamentally wrong. This matter must be dismembered. The state gives an order to the state farm: you release pedigree bulls or stallions to the peasants at such and such a price, and I, the state, pay you the difference.

Otherwise, we carry out state functions through state farms. Svidersky. And so, it is done.

Ancelovich. This is not done.

Trotsky. Obviously, this is not done, because if this were done, then there would be no complaints about unprofitableness.

Latsis. The difference is not paid yet.

Trotsky. Here they talked about the semi‐security principle if we give privileges to collective farms. If we give wasted benefits, i.e., if hungry people go to a collective farm for a year, receive help and disperse, then this is, of course, a bad form of social assistance, and not the collectivization of agriculture. But that was before, in the early years, and now we have a certain selection in the collective farms and we have full opportunity to control their composition before giving benefits, so this danger is not so great now. But one must clearly understand that otherwise than with state assistance, you will not be able to raise production cooperation, especially in agriculture. There is nothing ʺsocialistʺ here, there is a socialist principle, not a socialist principle! About the center. I do not agree with the idea that, as the co‐operators were pushing here, the collective farms should be dissolved in co‐operatives. No need to withdraw, but you canʹt dissolve either. Comrade Kaminsky says that collective farms are only channel of cooperation, among others. But we must not forget that this is the highest type of cooperation. There are still few collective farms, the quality is not high, but this is the highest type since it extends to production. No socialism can be built without production cooperation. Sales cooperation is only an initial stage. Only to the extent that production cooperatives begin to stand out more and more from the peasant masses in general, from consumer and sales cooperatives in particular, will we have an objective criterion that the countryside is moving towards socialism. So collective farms are not just one of the sectors, one of the sectors among others, it is the highest form, which in the historical perspective [preference is given] all other preparatory forms of cooperation are gradually subordinated. Therefore, it is impossible to simply dissolve the collective farms in the organization of the Selskosoyuz. Special, attentive, specialized guidance from the center is needed. What did they complain about in Ukraine, in the North Caucasus? Not only lack of leadership, but also lack of attention. One commune, ʺRed Mayakʺ, on its own initiative switched to the principle of the community membersʹ interest in the results of their work. This does not mean the complete destruction of the communist principle in the field of consumption. They have common apartments, common childrenʹs, common school, common club, these elements of collectivization of everyday life remain. They have a common kitchen and, apparently, it will remain so. But in the common kitchen one will, perhaps, take only two dishes, and the other will take sweets for the children. With regard to clothing, tobacco, and other things ‐ more individualism, freedom of choice and so on. So, in general, the regime is transient. But, apparently, this kind of regime corresponds to the present state of the communes. However, the most curious thing is that some communes fought over the same issue, not daring to tell the district party committee about the principle of interest. ʺThey will suddenly say that we have hit NEP.ʺ Are there any instructions on this? No. There is no guidance on many other aspects of the issue. What is needed is a center that, summarizing experience, must be able to say within what limits and under what conditions benefits to collective farms are rational. That they are generally necessary is indisputable, without this we will not go forward, but within what limits, in what forms, this issue should be resolved on the basis of experience.

Rykov. Comrade Svidersky * (* The speech is reproduced from an uncorrected transcript.).

Svidersky. I will focus primarily on Comrade Rositaʹs remarks. Comrade Rosit rebuked that we want to hide all the defects in the work of the Gosselsyndikat. This reproach is incorrect, because Comrade Rosit sent his accusations to us in writing, we signed them and read them. So, I had no attempt to hide them.

And I just asked and did not touch here why. This question, which is at the meeting of the Politburo, is the question of collective and state farm construction. The main issue is the weak form of state farms, seltrests and state agricultural syndicates. We have a dispute about what is the competence of the Gosselsyndikat, what is the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land, but in this neither we nor the RCP are arguing. In this link, a certain place is given to the Gosselsyndikat ...

Voice. The main thing is overhead.

Svidersky. ... with regard to overhead costs, we can say that things are bad in any Soviet body ...

Stalin. This is an excuse.

Svidersky. ... but the point is in these or those numbers, in those events that are being fought. Hereʹs the thing, Rosit told me about it. The charges brought against by the RCT staff differ in one characteristic. They always know everything, they expose everyone ‐ this is one type of workers, but for their work it is necessary. Another type that once worked in this area. They left, and when they left, it turns out they have a colossal amount of knowledge in this area, this is Shefler. Here he says that to criticize the work when they are poorly organized, but they were organized by Comrade. Shefler, he laid, he organized, and after him we had to fix it. If in three years we have not been able to complete it, (laughter) we should be reproached, but even under this condition, if he returned, he probably would not have recognized. The accusation he made about bad organization must be dropped. Comrade Rosit says the following in his accusation: ʺYou ate the share capital.ʺ This is at our meeting. Then Smirnov put the question point‐blank: ʺTell me, what share capital was consumed by Gosselindikat?ʺ Here it throws up the question of how much is eaten. If you drop such a question, it means not knowing the state of affairs in the least. If we analyze the share capital that was eaten on paper, then there was no share capital, and that it was eaten only formally, not actually (laughter).

Trotsky. How is it formally eaten?

Svidersky. Formally, because there were 5 million, and when it turned out that there were no 5 million, they fix broken tractors and put them in fixed assets.

Kamenev. On the paper.

Svidersky. These tractors were sold for 40‐50 thousand.

Voice. Tractor cemetery.

Svidersky That’s right, the tractor cemetery. Thatʹs what it is about. You cannot come and criticize with such arguments; this is the most frivolous way of criticism (laughter). And what about a targeted loan? Here, of course, a controversial question of how to count a targeted loan. You will not deny that under the Gosselsyndikat system, state farms were provided with more than 8 million, the same ... state farms were given less by 2 million. in accordance with those targeted loans that were allocated to him for this. If we take a formal point of view, then it turns out that these millions were intended in this order, and spent in a different order. This will be a formal violation, not a substantive one. Meanwhile, you are accusing not of a formal violation, but in essence, Gosselsyndikat of pocketing money.

The second maneuver is to approach criticism, tell an episode, it may be bright, and then quit.

Stalin. Still caught.

Svidersky. T. 62 talked about 80 breeding cows that were sold to the MOZGU * (* So in the document.), Of which 40 were not breeding cows, they had to be slaughtered. The same applies to the time of the king of the peas, this applies to NEP.

Trotsky. Then the king was not.

Svidersky.I will prove it to you with documents. Here you may have been misled, misinformed, but this story was in the 22‐23rd year. In my report, I was supposed to touch on the 24‐25th year, and I could not tell all those anecdotes in this area that were in the 22nd‐23rd year. This was not part of my task. But the accusations that Gosselsyndikat is engaged only in retail trade. If you listen to Comrade Rosita, it turns out that the Gosselsyndikat is only engaged in opening small shops in Moscow, and one might even think that it sells almost non‐state farm products. Wine and so on are not sovkhozes, but if sovkhozes, then not those that are united by the Gosselsyndikat. This may be the shadow side, but there was another side of the matter in the activities of the Gosselsyndikat. You keep silent about it and draw conclusions that do not correspond to reality.

Picture of the 23‐24th year. The entire commodity turnover was 3700 thousand, of which wholesale 2100 thousand and retail 1600 thousand. Thus, retail trade in general makes up 44%.

Stalin. And how much loss?

Svidersky. In 24‐25, all trade amounted to 17,211 thousand, of which retail 6.5 million, ie. 38%, thus, retail trade did not absorb everything. And you come to the Politburo and do not say anything about the wholesale, this is not a system of criticism, by this you do not reveal the truth, but obscure it.

As for the loss, it is calculated in ... I submit that all the charges of the RCT, if we check them, will turn out to be wrong. We liquidated * (* There is a handwritten note by an unknown person: “T. Svidersky said: “We have not liquidated retail trade”.”) Retail trade. Rosit. Why?

Svidersky. Because they found it impractical (laughter). I did not defend, but only pointed out the following that Gosselsyndikat was engaged not only in retail, but also in wholesale trade, which is its direct responsibility. Losses of half a million, not over 2 million, as comrade says. Rosit.

The main question is whether the system of organization of state farms that is outlined is correct. It is as follows: state farms, seltrests, Gosselsyndikat. What are the functions of the Gosselsyndikat and the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land? We are pursuing the following line: we are the most resolute opponents of centralization, and this is the dispute with Comrade Rosit. He says that the planned leadership should be concentrated in the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land, we say that this is nonsense, and we will not agree to this. By adopting such a resolution, we deny it and believe that it is a utopia to manage everything from Moscow. We leave only general observation in order to know what processes are taking place, and we find that supply and marketing management, instructing should be in the Gosselsyndikat, but built on a voluntary principle. This is the ruling that is correct (* So in the document).

Then let me say a couple of words about the labor question, which Comrade Kalinin, our resolution has worked out the question of the work question as well. Now Comrade. Trotsky pointed out the following that if cultural events are unprofitable, then they must be shifted at the expense of the state, we put it that way, in the resolution it is written in black and white 63... As for the collective farms, I must say the following that this report was presented at the NKZ, and we are in a difficult position, we, it turned out, do not know the collective farms, and it is curious that the circular, which will be in some way self‐flagellating, is very good he answers everything that Comrade Stalin and Aleksey Ivanovich, these circulars are carried out by few, because we have no apparatus. In the 23rd year when we are with Comrade. Smirnov carried out a new position, we posed the question that there should be a small apparatus overseeing the collective farm movement, and I believe that this apparatus was not given to us, I believe that the report that was made here and the co‐report that was made by Comrade Kaminsky, <show> that the state should have a small apparatus that would observe these phenomena.(* So in doc)sense of 20,000 associations, but we have ʺwildʺ collective farms, which are not included in agricultural. cooperation, there are 20% of them, this is a phenomenon that Comrade. Stalin, the ʺwildʺ collective farms that we have, and here we must, on the one hand, rely on collective farms ‐ economic socialist construction, but we must bear in mind that the peasant is more cunning than us, and the moment of socialist construction may turn against us ... Now the collective farms are institutions that are a gateway, but on the other hand, they are the apparatus from which one can take possession of state property, we have kulak elements in the localities that organize the exploitation of the local population. In this regard, a leading center should be created ‐ in Moscow or in large regions, these associations will certainly be correct,

Rykov * (* The speech is reproduced from an uncorrected transcript.). I want to say a few words about the fact that we have decided whether collective farms should be compulsory or not. In my opinion, in no case can they be compulsory. We can assume that they will be compulsory in the event that the collective farms are exempted from any tax and they give cars the first time for free, and then with great benefits. In my opinion, there is no difference from compulsion here. Each peasant raises the question that if he does not enter the collective farm, he will pay tax and bear all sorts of hardships, if he does not want to do this, then he must go to the collective farm, this will be a system, in my opinion, compulsory.

Kalinin. Economically compulsory.

Trotsky. Not forced, but incentive.

Rykov. Not incentive, but compulsory. If we are in the order of a single s.‐kh. We tax the income of the peasant at 25% of their collection and declare one system of organization exempt from this contribution, then if he does not want to pay this 25%, he goes to the collective farm and will go to the collective farm in order not to pay. Why do we need collective farms? We need collective farms in order to raise agriculture to a higher level of production, objectively, so that they are more sustained in the sense of being profitable, generally more productive and improve peopleʹs life and the system of organization. We will achieve this in the event that we defend exceptional conditions. In my opinion, this is called half‐salvation, when they make it possible with the help of our benefits to exist, despite the fact that they give less than any private economy, then their production will be the lowest form ... (inaudible).

On this basis, it is possible to achieve regenerative * (* So in the document) forms, this can lead to a social security form, and secondly, regarding rations for 300 souls ... (inaudible). They said at the beginning 70, approximately 400 rubles. per employee. It is absolutely clear that under this guise of cooperation we will have to suck funds from the collective farms, therefore, in the form of benefits, it is necessary to keep at such a level that it does not turn into a social welfare, charitable form, so that it does not create an opportunity to burn through state money without raising the economy. Here it is necessary to determine the amount of benefits that should and can be left. In my opinion, with regard to collective farms, now the central issue for collective farm agriculture is raising to a higher level, only the socialist form here is unfounded and will drag the entire system of organization back. Therefore, the size must be set in such a way and so that, firstly, politically made it possible to protect the collective farms from ... (inaudible) and, secondly, so that the peasant knows that there are benefits there, because this is a more productive form, and here the system and the benefit itself pushes for improvement. Why the hell then get ready, why, if all this does not exist, there will be no credit, there will be no opportunity to get cars for free, horses, etc. This is the main thrust, and to repeat the experience that we experienced several years ago, when we organized countless communes and they took everything away from what was, and there was organized a passage yard, one comes ‐ drags, the other drags, there is no need ... What is needed are such privileges that would put them in a competitive ability with an average organization of funds, a competitive ability with an ordinary one‐man farm with an average organization of production. It is possible to admit such privileges which, given the current level of production, will give less. Here it is called a semi‐Soviet form.

I propose to create a commission. Molotov is not here, but it is best to head it with Molotov. The composition of the commission: Molotov, Kalinin, Kosior, Rosit, Ancelovich, Svidersky, Kuznetsov. Molotov will be here soon. All these benefits and so on are listed in the order of STO 64. Therefore, it is necessary to give an additional directive to the question that has been poorly or well exhausted, only one: the commission should be obliged to present a project for organizing such a center for collective farm development, which, having no operational functions, would control, monitor their activities, and help collective farm development.

Voice. Regulated, studied.

Rykov. Supervised, regulated, studied, and assisted, but would not have operational functions.

This is a general task to give to the commission. Organize the commission in the same composition as I announced, and give it a relatively long term, say, a month.

Stalin. Two weeks.

Voice. Three weeks.

Kuibyshev. I propose to replenish the commission with the

Chutskaevs.

Voice. Introduce Latsis.

Rykov. Svidersky enters.

Svidersky. You can introduce Chutskaev with the replacement of Rosit.

Voice. Krutoshinsky from Ukraine.

Kaminsky. I propose to introduce Yakovlev. Not that Yakovlev who deals with supplies and spoke here, but there is Yakovlev from the Central Control Commission 65. He is the chairman of this council.

These are the people who practically run the whole business.

Janson. Yakovlev is on vacation.

Rykov. Comrade Kaminsky has the floor.

Kaminsky. First of all, regarding the remark of Comrade Kosior. I did not cite detailed data on Comrade Trotskyʹs proposal, meaning that they are set out in the written report, and in my speech dwelt only on the most pressing questions for us.

Of these, two questions attracted the attention of almost all the comrades who spoke and were clarified in detail in the debate.

Concerning the central apparatus. We have no dispute that such an apparatus is needed as the leading and organizational center of the collective farm movement. Moreover, such an apparatus already exists, it exists in the person of the All‐Union Council of Collective Farms under the Selskosoyuz. Comrade Vinnikov denies that this council has an all‐Union character; in fact, it is. It includes with the consent of the Ukrainian Central Committee and the collective farms of Ukraine. But itʹs not that. We are not going to drive anyone there with a stick. A number of well‐known comrades (Yakovlev, Mitrofanov, etc.) take part in the council. He also has a small technical apparatus.

Nevertheless, we have done considerable work to study the collective‐farm movement and to generalize experience in this area. There are serious written works of the council. By the 14th Party Congress, a large work, ʺThe Collective Farms of the USSRʺ 66 was published. There are monographs on individual collectives of the North Caucasus, the permanent magazine ʺCollectivistʺ is published 67etc. Nor can it be said that we are not leading the collective farm movement. Weʹre not leading enough ‐ thatʹs right. The collective farm council, which is largely composed of local representatives, meets regularly, and its decisions form the basis of the directives we issue to the localities. We have given directives on all the main issues of collective farm development, on the organization of labor, everyday life, organization of production, etc. New regulations have been worked out, taking into account the accumulated experience of collective farm development.

Trotsky. This is not necessary, of course?

Kaminsky. No, of course, these are not mandatory, but approximate statutes. It is perfectly clear, however, that with the means available to agriculturalists. co‐operation, I must state this bluntly, much cannot be done, and to the proposal made by Comrade Stalin concerning the organization of a center for collective farms, a clause on the financial basis of this center should be added. The same should be said for unions. Great work is required of them; such a movement as the collective farm requires great effort and constant attention. Here, comrade. Trotsky, your expression about the gatekeepers is quite appropriate; a particularly serious gatekeeper is needed here. But this requires funds.

Trotsky. Do you agree to accept this definition, only to be given money?

Kaminsky. Yes, I agree. It is necessary and possible for a party to be a gatekeeper. It is necessary that funds be given. There is a lot of theoretical work to be done here. Surveys, which even the CSO does not carry out because the CSO does not have enough budget, are also needed.

The last question is whether certain forms of encouraging collective farm development are needed. The dispute that arose in connection with the speech of Alexei Ivanovich seems to have been exhausted. We believe that the state should encourage the collective farm movement with appropriate benefits. But this encouragement is only useful to a certain extent. Aleksey Ivanovich is right that it should not go into social security.

Stalin. Do not say that you are poor, otherwise you will not receive any loan.

Trotsky. And not equated with individual assistance.

Kaminsky. When we convened a congress in 1926, two groups of collective farms emerged at it, one group had its slogan ʺTake and drag where it is bad.ʺ

Stalin. Probably the strongest group.

Kaminsky. May be. I and Comrade Svidersky and even Comrade Bukharin had to seriously work on them. Ultimately, at this congress, the main nucleus of collective farm leaders took shape. The congress learned that it was necessary to head the other way. On their own efforts, on internal growth. But at the same time, the collective farm workers add that the Party should not forget them, that they fought at the front, and now, together with the Party, they will build socialism in the countryside. Indeed, the question must be resolved in such a way that in the most difficult of the most difficult matters which the collective farmers are doing, they always feel the attention and assistance of the Party.

Rykov. Are these Siberian partisans?

Kaminsky. Yes, Siberian partisans. Comrade Trotsky was right that there are strong groups in the North Caucasus too.

Stalin. In Transcaucasia, I met such extremely strong guys. New people are perfect.

Kaminsky. If the Party has to go through new difficulties in the countryside, these extremely tough guys will undoubtedly be useful to us. State encouragement is necessary, but should not, however, replace the independence of collective farms, but, on the contrary, stimulate it. And in collective farm construction, the main task facing us is the task of strengthening and accelerating social accumulation. It is necessary that the collective farm cease to be a passage yard and a temporary stage on the way to the restoration of individual farming.

It often happens that a collective farm breaks up just when it has grown up, got stronger and got on its feet. This happens because everyone gets a horse and leaves. Therefore, Aleksey Ivanovich is right when he says that the promotion should be carried out in a skillful manner. State assistance should stimulate social accumulation within the collective. The collective farmers understand this, but sometimes they reach the point of stupidity, for example, up to the actual prohibition to leave the collective, deprivation of land, etc. We are against such compulsion. It can only scare away and repel from the collective farms. Certainly, certain restrictions are needed, and they are given in the sample statutes. The main thing that we must note is that the collective farm movement has managed to single out reliable cadres of strong people who are quite capable of leading it. This is a big political plus. Secondly, the collective farms themselves are now not the same what were before; over the years of the new economic policy, a selection of collective farms took place. The least healthy died, the strongest remained. Collective farms have ceased to be consumer farms, they have significantly developed their marketability, adapted to the conditions of the new economic policy, improved their internal organization, and began to mechanize. After the collapse in the early years of the New Economic Policy, the collective farm movement has stabilized and has recently entered a period of growth.

Rykov. On the Volga, I have met really wonderful collective farms.

Kaminsky. Until recently, we did not pay due attention to the collective farms, because we needed to establish, first of all, the main mass forms of organization of the peasantry. The collective farms were essentially on their own. Despite this, they got up and got stronger. This is indisputable proof of their vitality. There are, of course, and now there are still quite a few sick organizations that require rehabilitation. There are organizations where a man goes in order to endure the most difficult time, and then return to a sole proprietorship.

Such collective farms, however, are also a useful thing for the party. They need help with loans and stuff. This is one of the most realistic forms of helping the poor, and I have no doubt that with the right approach, a significant part of them can turn into quite sustainable organizations. One more remark on the organizational issue. In the commission, we will be able to work out in more detail the question of the leading center of collective farms, but from the very beginning the course towards an operational center should be rejected, just as it should be recognized as inexpedient the creation of local alliances of collective farms with operational functions. This would cause profound harm both to the collective‐farm movement and to the entire agricultural sector. cooperation.

Rykov. One from Ukraine should be included in the commission. I think to introduce Comrade. Vinnikov, then the composition of the commission is as follows: Molotov, Kalinin, Kosior, Chutskaev with replacement            by Rozit,    Ancelovich,         Svidersky,           Kuznetsov, Kaminsky, Krutoshinsky, Vinnikov. Comrade asks. Shefler as a

ʺbankʺ.

Shefler. I wrote that it would not be advisable to introduce me, since they say that it is necessary to discuss the issues of lending to state and collective farms, but I do not insist on this at all.

Trotsky. I propose to create two sub‐commissions and then combine them. I would suggest that as far as accounting is concerned, this should be done in parallel and in the same manner for collective and state farms: checking labor productivity, the profitability of an enterprise, so that parallel norms are developed for this accounting. Then it will be possible to make a comparison. I think we can create two sub‐committees and then merge them.

Ancelovich. Since there will be subcommittees, I propose to introduce comrades. Latsis and Hrushevsky, a representative from the place is desirable. Here is Hrushevsky from his place, the chairman of the Ukrainian association of state farms, and Latsis is at the head of the Gosselsyndikat.

Rykov. Then introduce Latsis, Grushevsky and Shefler with Schneider replaced.

Kaminsky. And Yakovleva from Selskosoyuz.

Rykov. What Yakovlev, we have a lot of them.

Kaminsky. Alexandra Yakovleva.

Janson. Then Rosita should be made a member of the commission.

Rykov. Rosita and Chutskaeva should be included as members of the commission. The commission prepares a draft resolution on the basis of an exchange of views on state and collective farms. With regard to state farms, it presents a project to create a body that, without having operational functions, would study and help collective farm development. The term of the commission is three weeks. So, the question is over 68.

1                     The transcript was not prepared for printing. Some of the texts (report and closing remarks by A.I. Svidersky, speeches by A.I. Rykov, I.V. Stalin) are not copyrighted.

The meeting was attended by members of the Politburo: M.I. Kalinin, A.I. Rykov, Ya.E. Rudzutak, I.V. Stalin, L.D. Trotsky; candidates for PB members: L.B. Kamenev: members of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b): K. Ya. Bauman, G.E. Evdokimov, S.V.

Kosior, G.V. Chicherin; candidate members of the Central Committee: G.N. Kaminsky, I.S. Unshlikht; members of the Central Control Commission Presidium: V.V. Kuibyshev, S.E. Chutskaev,

M.F. Shkiryatov, N.M. Yanson, E.M. Yaroslavsky. A.I. Svidersky, D.P. Rosit, L.A. Grushevsky, M.E. Shefler, N.M. Ancelovich, M.I. Latsis, Vinnikov, Z.M. Belenky, A.I. Yakovlev, S.S. Krutoshinsky. (RGASPI. F. 17.Op. 3. D. 578. L. 1.)

2                     ʺWar Communismʺ ‐ the policy of the Soviet state in the conditions of the Civil War (1918‐1920), which was based on the food dictatorship, direct product exchange between town and country, universal labor service and equal pay.

3                     Trusts ‐ in Soviet Russia and the USSR (from 1921 to 1930) ‐ selfsupporting associations of enterprises in the same industry. Zemorgans are land departments of councils of various levels.

4                     Sakharotrest is a state association of the sugar industry of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR under the Supreme Council of the National Economy of the USSR, formed in 1921. By 1926, Sakharotrest had 7 branches, 29 offices, and a number of representative offices throughout the country.

5                     Information about the work of this commission could not be found.

6                     Gossemkultura is an association of state farms specializing in the cultivation of high‐quality seeds of pure varieties.

7                     State Spirit is an association of enterprises producing alcoholic beverages.

8                     Under the Labor Land Use Act of May 22, 1922, labor farms were allowed to lease land on the condition that the tenant farms cultivate it with their own labor. In 1930, in areas of mass collectivization, the law was abolished, and in 1937 leasing was prohibited throughout the USSR.

Sharecropping is a type of lease in which the owner of the land receives a share of the crop.

9                     The decree of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) dated February 9, 1925 ʺOn state farmsʺ indicated the need to bring the size and quality of state farm fixed assets in line with the area of cultivated land, to strengthen fixed capital, and to provide bank loans with a constantly renewed loan. On May 20, 1925, the III Congress of Soviets of the USSR approved the measures taken by the Central Executive Committee and the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of the USSR to organize agricultural credit. (Directives of the CPSU and the Soviet government on economic issues. M.,

1957. T. 1. S. 504, 543.)

10 Par ‐ a field left unseeded for the summer to increase soil fertility; autumn plowing is a field plowed in the fall for sowing spring crops. 11 Vyzharebovka is a litter of mares.

12  VSNKh ‐ Supreme Council of the National Economy, established by decree of the All‐Russian Central Executive Committee on December 14, 1917 as a single center for managing the economy.

13  Gosselsyndikat ‐ All‐Russian State Agricultural Syndicate of the RSFSR Peopleʹs Commissariat of Agriculture.

14  Lending to state farms was provided for by the decision of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of February 9, 1925.

15  Vserabotzemles ‐ All‐Russian Trade Union of Land and Forest Workers, formed in September 1920, in January 1926 renamed into the Union of Agricultural and Forestry Workers of the USSR.

16  NK RKI ‐ Peopleʹs Commissariat of Workers ʹand Peasantsʹ Inspection was created by decree of the All‐Russian Central Executive Committee on February 7, 1920. By decision of the XII Congress of the RCP (b), it was merged with the Central Control Commission (CCC), which was enshrined in a resolution of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of the USSR in 1923, until 1934, it operated jointly with the Central Control Commission of the All‐Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), although formally it was an independent state body.

17  Probably Gosselsyndikat is meant.

18  This refers to M.I. Latsis, member of the board of the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land and Chairman of the Board of the Gosselsyndikat.

19  The Central Agricultural Bank was created by the decree of the II Congress of Soviets of the USSR on February 1, 1924. It was responsible for the development and implementation of plans for agricultural loans, their coordination with the banks of the Union republics and with the general financial and credit policy.

20  Probably A.P. Smirnov, Peopleʹs Commissar of Agriculture of the RSFSR.

21  This refers to the written report that was distributed to the participants in the Politburo meeting.

We are talking about the distribution of communist students who graduated in 1926 from the Agricultural Academy. K.A. Timiryazev. On June 12, 1926, a meeting was held at the organizational and distribution department of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), which discussed the distribution plan presented by the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land. (RGASPI. F. 17.Op. 69. D. 230.)

23  The written report handed out to the meeting participants was signed by A.I. Svidersky June 12, 1926 Preparatory materials for the reports of the Peopleʹs Commissariat of the RSFSR, Selskosoyuz and the co‐report of the Central Control Commission‐NK RKI to the Central Committee of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the results of collective and state farm construction were published in the Historical Archive magazine. 1960. No. 1. S. 9‐78. There are no reports in the transcripts (revised and uncorrected).

24  Probably this refers to the Bulletin of the Central Statistical Office of the USSR, published in 1919‐1926.

25  The Central Statistical Office (CSO) was created on July 25, 1918 as the central statistical body under the SNK of the RSFSR, with the formation of the USSR an all‐Union CSO was created.

26  This refers to the All‐Union meeting of agricultural collectives held in Moscow from February 26 to March 6, 1925.

27  Agricultural artel ‐ an association of peasants for the purpose of running a joint agricultural economy. A partnership for joint cultivation of land (TOZ) is the simplest form of agricultural production cooperation, in which land plots and the labor of its members were united.

28  At the all‐Union meeting of agricultural collectives, the All‐Union Council of Collective Farms was formed as an advisory body under the Selskosoyuz. It consisted of 16 people. ‐ representatives of the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land of the RSFSR, Selskosoyuz, NK RFK USSR, Cooperative Institute, collective farms.

29  Selskosoyuz ‐ All‐Russian Union of Agricultural cooperation. It was formed in August 1921. In the first period of its activity, before the separation of branch cooperative centers, it was the central association in the field of supplying means of production, processing, and marketing of agricultural products for the domestic and foreign markets. After the formation in 1925 of the Council of Agricultural Cooperative Centers and the establishment of the Collective Farm Center, Selskosoyuz became a specialized center for the production supply of agricultural cooperatives.

30  This partnership was headed by V.A. Lipaev, a recording of his speech at the Council of the Agricultural Union in May 1926 is available in the archive. (RGASPI. F. 17.Op. 85. D. 183. L. 163.)

31  Latifundia is a large land holding.

32  Rosselbank is one of the six republican banks that were part of the Central Agricultural Bank.

33  Budenovites are soldiers and commanders of the First Cavalry Army, which was commanded by S.M. Budyonny.

34  Tables are missing in the revised and uncorrected transcript.

35  The amount of a bank loan of 5 million rubles to be provided to state farms. was specified in the Orgburo decree of February 9, 1925. The decision was approved as a whole with the following proviso: ʺTo approve the resolution of the meeting on work in the countryside ... passing paragraph 7 on lending to state farms for final permission to the service station.ʺ (RGASPI. F. 17.Op. 112. D. 636. P. 5; F. 631. Op. 2. D. 18. L. 18‐25). When the resolution was published, the loan amount was not indicated. This part of the resolution was formulated as follows: ʺGranting state farms a bank constantly renewing credit, proceeding from economic expediency, guarantees of repayment of loans, as well as in connection with the beginning of field work and with harvesting.ʺ (Bulletin of the Central Committee of the RCP (b). 1925. No. 11‐12. P. 10.)

36  This refers to the report of A.I. Svidersky.

37  Decree of the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of the RSFSR ʺOn measures to strengthen the economic situation of Soviet farmsʺ March 6, 1925 (Collection of legalizations and orders of the workers ʹand peasantsʹ government of the RSFSR. 1925. No. 18. Art. 121.)

38  Decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of the RSFSR dated March 30, 1925 ʺOn agricultural trusts.ʺ (Collection of legalizations and orders of the workers ʹand peasantsʹ government of the RSFSR. 1925. No. 21. Art. 150.)

39  See note 23.

40  Gosselsklad ‐ State warehouse of agricultural products, management of agricultural warehouses of the USSR Peopleʹs Commissariat of Agriculture.

41  This refers to departments for slaughtering livestock for meat.

42  Resolution of the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of the RSFSR dated May 15, 1925 was not found.

43  Butter Center ‐ All‐Russian Union of Dairy Cooperation, organized in 1924 on the basis of the dairy and oil department of the Selskosoyuz as a production and sales center of the industry.

44  This is a decree of the Orgburo dated February 9, 1925 ʺOn state farmsʺ, where it was noted that ʺthe intended size of the loan should ... be released taking into account the creditworthiness and profitability of the credited enterprise for the harvest and production of state farms at a maximum of 8‐9% per annumʺ ... (RGASPI. F. 631.Op. 2. D. 18.L. 22.)

45  N.M. Ancelovich from 1923 to 1930 was the chairman of the Central Committee of the trade union of agricultural and forestry workers.

46  This refers to D.P. Rosit.

47  Flax Center ‐ All‐Russian Central Cooperative Union of Flax and

Hemp Growers, formed in August 1922.

48  Information about this decision could not be found.

9 This refers to the Peopleʹs Commissariat of Social Security of the RSFSR.

50  In this case, we are talking about grain production. A pound is a unit of mass in the system of Russian measures, about 400 grams.

51  ʺCollectivistʺ is a mass collective farm magazine, an organ of the USSR Peopleʹs Commissariat of Agriculture and the Collective Farm

Center. It was published in 1925‐1933.

52  Selmashsindikat, the exact name ʺSelmashʺ is the All‐Russian State Syndicate of Agricultural Machines and Tools, the charter of which was approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the National Economy on May 9, 1922.

Gostorg ‐ State Import and Export Trade Office.

53  Probably, this refers to the decision of the October 1925 plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), which in the resolution on the report of V.M. Molotov, ʺOn the work of the party among the rural poor,ʺ recognized the need to create a special fund within the Central Agricultural Bank in order to raise the poor peasants, and proposed to render all possible assistance to the construction of collective farms of the low‐power and middle peasants. (Economic life in the USSR. Book 1. P. 148.)

54  Khlebotsentr ‐ All‐Russian Union of Agricultural Cooperation for the Production, Processing and Marketing of Grain and Oilseeds, was established in 1926 with the aim of uniting the activities of cooperative organizations included in its system.

55  Written report could not be found. For background material see note 23.

56  GOMZ (GOMZ) ‐ State Association of Machine‐Building Plants, created in 1918 and with the beginning of the NEP transformed into a trust, existed until 1930. It united the factories Sormovsky, Kolomensky, Bryansk, Tverskoy, Mytishchinsky, Tomilinsky, Tormoznoy, six plants of the Prioksky Mining District, Rybinsk plant and tool plant in Moscow.

57  The Politburo decision could not be found.

It was not possible to establish which resolution of the STO is in question.

59  This refers to the period of active field work. Yegoriev day ‐ the name day of Yegor (Yuri, Georgy), which was celebrated on June 7 of the old style, and Yuryevʹs day, the day of St. George the Victorious, a church holiday celebrated on November 26 of the old style.

60  Resolution of the STO of February 2, 1922 and the decree of the

All‐Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of March 30, 1925 in the part concerning the Gosselsyndikat and its functions.

61  The meeting was attended by K. Ya. Bauman, member of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), in 1924‐1928. ‐ Head of the department of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) for work in the countryside and at the same time the second secretary of the MK of the CPSU (b).

62  The speech is about D.P. Rosita.

63  This is probably a draft resolution presented by the rapporteurs on the issue under discussion.

64  This refers to the resolution of the STO of March 16, 1925, which included all the main provisions of the decree of the Council of Peopleʹs Commissars of the RSFSR of March 6, 1925 ʺOn measures to strengthen the economic position of Soviet farms.ʺ (RGASPI. F. 631. Op. 2.D. 18. L. 26.)

65  At the 14th Congress of the All‐Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Ya.A. was elected a member of the Central Control Commission. Yakovlev. (XIV Congress of the All‐Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Verbatim report. Moscow; Leningrad, 1926. S. 1003.)

66  Collective farms of the USSR. From the results of the construction of agricultural. communes, artels and partnerships for public cultivation of land in 1925, M.; L., 1926.

67  See note 51.

68  The composition of the commission has changed several times. (RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 3. D. 587. L. 2.) In the fund of the faction of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of the Union of Agricultural Cooperation Unions, there are separate minutes of the commissionʹs meetings (RGASPI. F. 631. Op. 2. D. 18 L. 1‐6, 90‐92, 97‐100, 137‐139), as well as draft resolutions and comments thereto. (Ibid. L. 7‐12, 38‐89, etc.)

The final decision on the issue under discussion was taken by the Politburo on December 30, 1926 in the form of two resolutions: ʺOn the results of the construction of collective farmsʺ and ʺOn state farm constructionʺ. See appendix 2, 3.

When published, the resolutions were combined, see the Directives of the CPSU and the Soviet government on economic issues. S. 625637.