How Soviet collective farmers could accumulate funds to order military equipment for the front

Collectives of Soviet citizens, including collectives of village workers, often donated funds for military equipment.

One of the common judgments about Soviet collectivization is that the peasants were not just forcibly driven into collective farms, but even the last piece of land was taken from them, on which they could run their own farm. In the materials of individuals calling themselves experts, it is said that the Soviet peasant did not even have the elementary opportunity to grow dill on his personal plot, "because there were no household plots."

This judgment does not stand up to scrutiny. Even in the Stalin years, which are considered the apogee of the work of the "repressive apparatus", rural workers who were part of the collective farms could safely use the plots near the house for personal needs. Moreover, such plots could have a very significant area - up to 1 hectare of agricultural areas. To put it mildly, a lot for running your own family farm.

And it’s not a single dill ... Collective farmers could raise cattle on their plots, beekeeping.

This data is disputed by liberal historians. However, this challenge is worthless in terms of specific examples. So, during the war years, the collective farmers themselves collected the proceeds and transferred them to factories for the production of military equipment - for the front, for victory. If the entire economy were exclusively collective-farm, and all funds were withdrawn by the state, then how could collective farmers jointly accumulate amounts that allowed them to buy from factories Tanks and planes to be sent to the front? Not just accumulate, but also personally transfer to the management of defense enterprises.

About how the peasants were managing in the USSR, about Ferapont Petrovich Golovat, about Stalin's artels, as well as how these types of farming were destroyed in the Khrushchev era, in the plot of the "Consciousness" channel:

Comments

[tihonmarine]

If the entire economy were exclusively collective-farm, and all funds were withdrawn by the state, then how, in this case, the collective farmers could jointly accumulate sums,

My maternal grandfather was a carpenter and built wooden houses, so he also lived quite well, and his house was the best in the village of Stupniki, Smolensk Region.

[Svarog]

My maternal grandfather was a carpenter and built wooden houses, so he also lived quite well

Likewise. Mine also built houses and we did not live very badly. Everything was its own and there was a cow and a pig ..
As for the lies that are pouring in an endless stream from all kinds of "experts" about the Soviet regime .. then all this is easily refuted .. Just look at the numbers, the growth of demography, the growth of industrial production .. in general, where you look everywhere is growth. And if the peasants' spread rot, as the "experts" say, there would be no such indicators ... there would be indicators, as now everywhere with a negative growth ..

[vvvjak]

Quote: Svarog

Similarly.

My great-grandfather, in general, was never a member of the collective farm. Kept bees, fished. He died a natural death, no one repressed him. Only recently did I find out that he was in German captivity during the time of the 1st MV.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: vvvjak

Kept bees, fished. He died a natural death, no one repressed him.

Those who wanted to live well, lived well, but for this it was necessary to work well (as now).

[rocket757]

In almost every family, you can find episodes of different directions, which characterize different features / moments of the life of our country ...
It was different, it is true, but the general attitude, direction was the same ... the country was developing, increasing its economic power, growing in population !!!
If not for external circumstances, events, the country could achieve great success ...
Anyway, okay, what happened was ...
We should be proud of our great past and move forward. All together as one people.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Svarog

Mine also built houses and we did not live very badly. Everything was its own and there was a cow and a pig ..

And there must have been horses.

[Svarog]

Quote: tihonmarine

And there must have been horses.

No horses were kept.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Svarog

And if the peasants' spread rot, as the "experts" say, there would be no such indicators ... there would be indicators, as now everywhere with a negative growth ..

As Yegor Ligachev said - "We lived not richly, but well."

[210ox]

We have one small homeland with you. I remember those years from the stories of my parents, they were born in 1928. They lived in the Glinkovsky district. There was everything - livestock, poultry, vegetable garden. Milk and meat were handed over for money, well, there was nothing left for myself. Of course, the years were difficult, but I have not listened to liberal nonsense for a long time.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: tihonmarine

My maternal grandfather was a carpenter and built wooden houses, so he also lived quite well, and his house was the best in the village of Stupniki, Smolensk Region.

Countrywoman.
Village Zarechye, Khislavichesky district, Smolensk region - 10 km from the road through impassable mud.
The grandmother raised two sons by herself.
When we were visiting her with her father in '76, she didn't even have bed linen - she slept on a mattress filled with straw.
In the general store there are only matches, bread and "tourist's breakfast".
Children were given bread with margarine sprinkled with sugar as a delicacy - a delicacy, because margarine was brought in once a month.
It had its own cow and chickens, geese and a vegetable garden.
Poverty is terrible, of course, neither a TV nor a radio - my grandmother ironed the linen with an iron on coal - even before the revolution. There was no horse - she hired a neighbor to plow the garden, she controlled the plow herself, paid with moonshine - they paid money only in the fall, and then not everyone, the collective farmers took some with firewood, some with grain

Yes - whoever had men at the front did not die, did not disappear, lived better - who had a motorcycle (2-3 per hundred households) - was considered prosperous.

Now, along with the old people, the village has also died, whom the children took to the city, who left this world in old age - all the youth fled at the first opportunity.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

Now, along with the old people, the village has also died, whom the children took to the city, who left this world in old age - all the youth fled at the first opportunity.

In this school I was finishing my "seven-year" school in the village of Zagusinye, Dukhovshchinsky district, and now ......

[Vladimir_2U]

The nonsense about workdays as just a record in the granary book is also widespread!

[Far B]

The obligatory minimum of workdays on collective farms is about a hundred days. The rest of the time the collective farmer could spend at his own discretion. If it were not for his private household, what would he, in general, do the remaining 200-odd days a year, in the opinion of the liberal community? Did you play pears with this very device?
As for the transfer of their own funds for the purchase of military equipment, then in 43 a certain priest from Udmurtia donated a very substantial sum for the front to acquire it (the details, unfortunately, have faded from memory, but the case is indicative). Another example is Maria Vasilievna Oktyabrskaya, who by 43 had accumulated funds in evacuation to purchase the Fighting Girlfriend tank.

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Far In

The obligatory minimum of workdays on collective farms is about a hundred days. The rest of the time the collective farmer could spend at his own discretion. If it were not for his private household, what would he, in general, do the remaining 200-odd days a year, in the opinion of the liberal community? Did you play pears with this very device?

Now I am interested in something else, if the obligatory minimum of workdays on collective farms was 100 (per year), how did they cope with sowing, harvesting fodder for livestock, harvesting?
Taking into account the mechanization of state and collective farms in the 70s and 80s, for example, an increase in acreage and mowing, during the period of plowing and sowing (spring) work, depending on the regions, the period of such work in the spring was at least 20 working days , in 2 shifts.
The end of the sowing season goes into the preparation of forage: hay and green mass. Depending on the regions, forage harvesting begins from the first ten days of June, and is carried out during the summer months until autumn (harvesting corn for silage).
From the end of July, the beginning of August, the harvesting of cereals begins (the first one seems to be suitable for oats), until the end of September (harvesting of buckwheat, root crops).
In late summer, early autumn, plowing and sowing of winter cereals is also carried out.
On average, during the period of spring, summer and autumn field work, at least 150 working days are obtained.
In the fall, work on the grain current is added. Livestock and dairy farms require work all year round.
Since autumn, most likely, work was added on the order for logging for the state, and the collective farm needed timber both for heating and business.

[Far B]

Now I am interested in something else, if the obligatory minimum of workdays on collective farms was 100 (per year), how did they cope with sowing, harvesting fodder for livestock, harvesting?

Awesome question. It would make sense only if the collective farm in its entirety worked continuously for those 100 days, and then, again with its full complement, went on a well-deserved rest until next year. However, there is such a thing as shift work. For example, day after day. Or three days later. When people take turns working. And in this situation, your question simply loses its meaning.

[Lynx2000]

I think it’s not at all like that ... Field workers in spring, summer and autumn work are busy practically seven days a week. There is also work in rainy weather. The situation is similar in animal husbandry. There is no work in the village on shifts, day after day (shepherds on distant pastures of young animals for fattening). During the Great Patriotic War, with a shortage of male hands, equipment and horses, there were not enough workers in general.

[Far B]

They work seven days a week. And, indeed, from dawn to dawn and the whole collective farm. Only suffering - it does not last long. What is spring, what is summer. The rest of the time is quite a change. During the war years, the number of compulsory workdays was increased by one and a half times. Then everything returned to its place.

[Lynx2000]

Strada is a harvesting company, not only mowing and threshing grain, but also hay harvesting and silage harvesting at the same time. They also work the night shift. In addition, spring sowing operations: plowing, harrowing and sowing are not inferior in intensity to the harvest. Time is short, you have to sow on time.
In the harvester, the combine operator worked during the day, rested at night, worked another at night ... I am writing about the 70-80s.

Concerning workdays:
The workday is not a measure of working timespent by an individual collective farmer during the working day. A workday is a measure of the quantity and quality of labor, invested by each member of the collective farm in the social production of the collective farm. A collective farmer who performs qualified work during a working day (for example, a tractor driver) can work out four or more workdays per day, and an unskilled worker (for example, a watchman) can receive only half a workday for a full day.
The workday determines the right of the collective farmer to collective farm income: the more and better the collective farmer works, the more workdays are accrued to him. The workday, being a measure of labor on a collective farm, at the same time serves as a measure of remuneration.

The cost of a workday is determined after the collective farm fulfills its obligations to the state, the formation of public funds and the allocation of products due in the form of additional payment for increased productivity of agricultural crops and increased productivity of animal husbandry. The products and monetary incomes remaining after this and subject to distribution among the collective farmers determine, depending on the workdays expended by the collective farm, the natural and monetary value of one workday. Thus, the cost of a workday is a variable value: it is determined by the profitability of a given collective farm in a given agricultural year.
All types of collective farm labor, depending on their difficulty and complexity, were evaluated according to a nine-digit grid. The first category includes the lightest and least qualified jobs - they are estimated at half a day; according to the ninth category, the most difficult and requiring high qualifications are assessed - for them 2,5 workdays are established.

On collective farms, labor planning and accounting were carried out. The standard form of the collective farm production plan establishes the procedure for planning labor and expenditure of workdays. The production plan of the collective farm should provide for how many workdays are supposed to be spent on each crop in each branch of the collective farm, as well as how many workdays will be spent on remuneration of the administrative and service personnel.
When drawing up plans for the expenditure of workdays, the collective farm board is obliged to take into account the level of mechanization of work by individual brigades, the difference and contamination of soils and the varietal characteristics of the crops sown. Brigadiers and foremost collective farmers should be involved in drawing up plans for the expenditure of workdays on collective farms.

All agricultural work on collective farms was carried out on a piecework basis. Time wages were allowed only in relation to the administrative and service personnel of collective farms (chairman, accountant, cleaner, watchman, etc.).

Distinguished individual piecework and small-group piecework.
In case of individual piecework, workdays are awarded to each collective farmer for work performed personally by him. In the case of small-group piecework, workdays are accrued to a group of collective farmers engaged in the same work, with the subsequent distribution of workdays between individual collective farmers of this group.

The workdays worked out by each member of the collective farm were kept by the foreman.
The accounting of workdays and harvests for each brigade in the areas assigned to them had to be carried out separately.

Along with the basic wages in labor days, since 1941, additional payment was introduced on collective farms for overfulfilling the plan for crop yields and livestock productivity.
For the first time, additional wages were introduced by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) of December 31, 1940 in the collective farms of the Ukrainian SSR. Subsequently, this system of remuneration was extended to all other republics, territories and regions.
In order to increase yields and raise the productivity of animal husbandry, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) recommended that collective farms give collective farmers brigades additionally, in excess of the established payment for workdays, in kind or pay in cash part of the products they received in excess of the plan. For individual republics, territories and regions, different amounts of additional payment for overfulfillment of the plan have been established.
The additional payment due to collective farmers for exceeding the yield plans is distributed among the members of the brigade in proportion to the workdays worked out by each of them at the work, as a result of which the above-planned production was obtained.

Additional wages are paid only to those collective farmers who earn the established annual minimum of workdays. Tractor drivers receive additional wages on a par with the collective farmers of the field-cultivation brigades, in the areas of which they worked. The foreman of the tractor brigade is given 50%, and his assistant is 30% more than the additional payment on average for one tractor driver of the brigade. A tractor brigade meter-tanker receives an additional payment in the amount of the average additional payment per one tractor driver of the brigade.

Collective farmers engaged in animal husbandry receive additional payment for overfulfilling planned targets for milk yield, preserving young stock, fattening cattle, shearing wool, etc. For example, milkmaids for overfulfilling the milk yield plan for an assigned group of cows up to 1500 liters per forage cow 15% of milk produced in excess of the plan is issued, with a milk yield of 1500 to 2000 liters, 20% of milk milked in excess of the plan is given, etc.

The rates of additional remuneration for collective farmers for overfulfilment of tasks for raising young animals, preserving adult livestock and increasing the productivity of livestock raising are different in different republics, territories, and regions. Additional payment is made only after the collective farm fulfills the plan to increase the number of livestock for the farm and brigade.

[Far B]

I will not argue with you. On the Internet, you can easily find a lot of legal and regulatory acts that regulate labor activity on collective farms. Do mercy, read it.
And what does the additional payment for overwork have to do with it, if we are talking about the fact that the collective farmer could spend all the time, in excess of the workdays, as he pleases? He could - on his own subsidiary farm, could - continue to work on the collective farm. For what you have dragged the "additional" - it is generally not clear.

[Lynx2000]

In this case, I do not drag in, but I express my opinion based on my personal experience of living in the countryside and the recollections of my grandfathers. A collective farm is a public enterprise (artel type), first of all, the members of the collective farm were obliged to comply with the norms established by the state. The collective farmer was engaged in personal farming (garden, vegetable garden, livestock) outside working hours, sometimes at night.
You still think that a workday is one working day for a collective farmer. Wrong.
Rural life is not about pasteral paintings. First of all, the collective farmer considers not how much he has left to work up to 100 workdays (where did you get this norm of 100 workdays?), But to complete a certain norm of work as part of a brigade (link), sow or harvest, a field of 60 hectares within 5 days , for the complexity and completion of work in 3-4 days, they can charge the collective farmer 7-8 workdays.

Regarding the contributions and purchases of military equipment by citizens of the USSR during the Second World War, of course, briefly, but more or less clearly said in the film, do your mercy, check out:

[Doctor]

Regarding the contributions and purchases of military equipment by citizens of the USSR during the Second World War, of course, briefly, but more or less clearly said in the film, do your mercy, check out:

Nothing is clear there. As well as in the movie article.

They tell stories that under Stalin there were almost no businessmen who could buy a plane, and the evil Khrushchev cut them all.

[Lynx2000]

As my grandmother explained to me, she was 41 at the age of 14. Live money during the war years was not seen, natural products: grain, vegetable oil and milk were received quarterly from the collective farm. There were enough products end-to-end. There were subscriptions of loans to the state for defense. It turns out that part of the products due for workdays went to the defense of the country. When she, at the age of 16, began to take part in driving cattle and horses from Mongolia, she received food rations and a share of the death of cattle with meat (when driving, weak sheep and cattle fell, suffocated, they were cut, butchered, skins were handed over).
There was little money supply as such in the years of won ...

[Doctor]

As my grandmother explained to me, she was 41 at the age of 14. Live money during the war years was not seen, natural products: grain, vegetable oil and milk were received on a quarterly basis. There were enough products end-to-end. There were subscriptions of loans to the state for defense. It turns out that part of the products due for workdays went in favor of the country's defense. When she, at the age of 16, began to take part in driving cattle and horses from Mongolia, she received food rations and a share of the death of cattle with meat (when driving, weak sheep and cattle fell, suffocated, they were cut, butchered, skins were handed over).
There was little money supply as such in the years of won ...

It's simple.

Ferapont Petrovich Golovaty was a beekeeper. He had 22 hives.
In 1944, he collected 200 kg of honey from them - 4 flasks.
The usual collection for a good beekeeper.

He did not squeeze honey like others, but decided to help the front.

I went to the market and started selling this honey.
Since there was famine in the country, 1 kg of honey cost about 800 rubles.
I sold honey and collected a bag of money (inflation, however) - 160 rubles.

Then Ferapont Petrovich came to the plant and bought a Yak-Z.
Its cost at that time was 158 rubles.

And such a cost price is because a worker at a military plant again received 800 rubles.
A jar of honey.
Or 7 kg of wheat.
Or 3 bottles of vodka, as you like.

Per month. For a 14 hour working day.

This is how it is - business according to Stalin.

[Krasnoyarsk]

As for me, it - is nothing new. But for many, not biased, very useful knowledge. And this should be promoted in every possible way. Propaganda - transmission, distribution, information.

[Doctor]

As for me, it - is nothing new. But for many, not biased, very useful knowledge. And this should be promoted in every possible way. Propaganda - transmission, distribution, information.

Propaganda is power!

The cost of the T-34 tank in 1944 was 135 thousand rubles.
A kilogram of rye flour at the same time is 115 rubles. Wheat - 140.
And they sold it in the markets not in kilograms and glasses.

That is, the T-34 cost a ton of wheat, or more clearly - that's how much:

Create conditions in the country for a ton of grain to cost lemon bucks and any farmer will donate a tank battalion to our army.

[paul3390]

Actually, the main problems with grub began when Khrushchev deprived the collective farms of any independence, destroyed the household plots and, most importantly, slaughtered the MTS. Most of the collective farms have already failed to cope with this. But if the Stalinist agriculture at the very least - but pulled out the most terrible war - is there a need for a more compelling argument in favor of a socialist form of management ??

In general - the liberals brought down on our heads Niagara open lies about those years .. And they continue to pour, not embarrassed by outright crap like the notorious galoshes .. But the more they lie, the more people have a desire to figure out how it really was. And here - a revolution in consciousness begins among sane people .. Especially against the background of current reality.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: paul3390

Actually, the main problems with grub began when Khrushchev deprived the collective farms of any independence, destroyed the household plots and, most importantly, slaughtered the MTS. Most of the collective farms have already failed to cope with this.

Precisely, Khrushch knocked down the village.

[A. Privalov]

"Blessed is he who believes, warmth to him in the world ..."

(C)

[stalkerwalker]

I inherited a house built by my grandfather in 1925-1926. With a plot of more than a hectare and the remains of a garden that he planted. Only Antonovka has survived to this day.
Grandfather died near Leningrad in October 41. He was not a member of the collective farm, he worked for the railway. assistant driver. He went to the front as a volunteer in August 41.
A grandmother with six children remained at home. Later she brought three more children of her sister to the house, who died from a Nazi grenade thrown into the basement of the house.
If it were not for the cow, which they hid in the nearby forest from the invaders, hardly 10 people would have survived during the occupation from October 41 to August 43, although they were starving, of course.
The post-war life was hard and hungry. Nobody canceled the tax on the economy, they paid from each bush of currants and gooseberries, from each apple tree, from a cow.
But in 1957 it became so bad that my grandmother sold the house and left for the city, where she earned her pension as a nurse in the hospital.

[nikvic46]

I enjoyed watching this video, but what did you want to show us? "What is due to Jupiter is not due to the Bull." Now is a completely different time. In the first place money and selfishness. The basis is not the same.

[Maks1995]

Yeah. The video is good. There were a lot of articles and articles about house plots, etc. it was the cornman who pressed and pressed.

But another question has not been disclosed. What is the mechanism of production-purchase itself?

"Son, here, buy yourself a tank" or "BUK" - is it purely a PR action or not?

Tanks / airplanes are produced by the state, and on top of the plan, release more heels for the collective farmer ... from what? from rollers, a cannon, a machine gun, an engine, etc. bought somewhere on the left with the collective farmer's money?
or simply - they took the money, called the tank built for donations? Wouldn't there be - would there have been the same tank, but without a name?

[Overlock]

Quote: Max1995

What is the mechanism of production-purchase itself?

Loans!
The first military loan was placed among the population in a few days, while the subscription exceeded 13 billion rubles. with a nominal amount of 10 billion. The first war loan was followed by others, one per year, for ever larger amounts. The loans were for 20 years.
During the years of the Great Patriotic War, receipts from state loans amounted to 76,8 billion rubles, and their importance in the revenue side of the budget increased. If for 1938-1941. collected by subscription 34,9 billion rubles. accounted for about 6% of income, then in 1942 this share increased to 7,4%, in 1943 - up to 8,7%, in 1944 - up to 9,8%, having slightly decreased in 1945 - to 7,7%. About 15% of all defense expenditures were covered by loans during the war years.
Despite the promoted voluntariness, it became virtually impossible to evade the subscription to the loan.

[Maks1995]

This is interesting, but it is a mechanism for attracting money.

And the mechanism of linking production-purchase is also interesting. Purely a formality, I brought in money - they made an inscription on the board of ready-made tanks,
or somehow they actually built with this money ...

[Overlock]

Quote: Max1995

This is interesting, but it is a mechanism for attracting money.

And the mechanism of linking production-purchase is also interesting. Purely a formality, I brought in money - they made an inscription on the board of ready-made tanks,
or somehow they actually built with this money ...

Money was transferred on paper to a specific plant, there the inscriptions were made

[Maks1995]

Those. pure PR? Wouldn't you have contributed money - there are exactly the same number of tanks left? But without an inscription ...

[Overlock]

Quote: Max1995

Those. pure PR?

What a PR! The money went to the treasury!

[Maks1995]

Money came in. Right. Somehow they were addressed and taken into account.
With the surrendered gold it was possible to buy something over the hill.

But the mechanism itself is not described, "not market". Money in the cashier, for a finished tank - an inscription.
Money was brought in for 10 tanks - there is an inscription on the already finished 10 tanks.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

It must be said that Golovatov had not saved up funds for the plane before the war:

In December 1942, Golovaty took the cans of honey 200 kilometers from the Stepnoy farm to the Saratov city market, where a separate tent was built for him. In a few days Ferapont Petrovich collected a bag of money (honey was very expensive - 1 kg cost 500-900 rubles, and that year Ferapont Golovaty collected 200 kg of honey), after which he came to the director of the Saratov aircraft plant Israel Solomonovich Levin with a request to sell him a fighter valued at 100 thousand rubles

His sons fought. Here is a man who disposed of his earnings in the private market, as his conscience told him to.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

The collective farmers did not have personal money.
Golovatov, sold honey that was not obtained by working on a collective farm:

In December 1942, a meeting was held on the collective farm, at which the chairman urged to contribute money for the construction of a combat aircraft - following the example of collective farmers in the Tambov region, who began collecting funds for the construction of military equipment and weapons. Ferapont Petrovich suddenly said: "Maybe I'll buy an airplane myself with my own money."

To anyone interested, I can recommend a scientific work on the black market of the Stalin period by Elena Osokina - "Behind the facade of Stalin's abundance".
The source of this book is made up of archival documents'

For example, if Narkomsnab / Narkom-
bargaining could embellish the results of their work in supplying the population,
then there were immediately organizations that identified shortcomings -
OGPU / NKVD, commissions of party and Soviet control, for example.
Multi-departmental nature of sources for mutual verification of information.

The main body of materials on which the work is based,
lived in the funds of the central state and party bodies, under-
dealing with trade issues.

Economic reviews and special reports of the OGPU / NKVD contain richer ^
more material on the situation in industrial enterprises, collective farms and
state farms, in the army, on city streets, in shops. Part of the complex
OGPU / NKVD materials are also police materials.

Success in the development of market trading has always been associated with success
ham of the collective farm system. Each researcher strove to emphasize that
the collective farm market of the period of socialism was fundamentally different from
peasant market NEP. Contradicting themselves, historians, however, immediately
wrote that 80-90% of production came to this market from private estates
farms of peasants, and not from collective farm fields and farms. Collective farms either
there was little left to offer for sale after the broom
goods passed through their bins, or they, hiding from the blanks, selling
whether their products were illegal, that is, they were speculating.