Stalinʹs speech to consider the draft Model Charter of the Agricultural Artel

Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

    Stalin- Transcripts from Soviet Archives

Stalinʹs speech to consider the draft Model Charter of the Agricultural Artel

JV Stalinʹs speech at a meeting of the commission of the II All‐Union Congress of Collective Farmers‐Shock Workers to consider the draft Model Charter of the Agricultural Artel. February 16, 1935

A source:  The tragedy of the Soviet village. Collectivization and dispossession. Documents and materials Volume 4. 1934 ‐ 1936. Moscow ROSSPEN p. 390‐402

Archive:                RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 120.D. 138.L. 68‐91. Copy.

No. 146

Stalinʹs speech at a meeting of the commission of the II All‐Union Congress of Collective Farmers‐Shock Workers for consideration of the draft Model Charter of the Agricultural Artel 111

Comrade Stalin. First of all, comrades, I think that we must take into account the remark of one of the delegates of the Voronezh Region that where it is said about land as the property of the people, we mean only collective farmland, and meanwhile, there are other lands, state farms, this is also peopleʹs land. This remark is correct, one can say this: ʺland occupied by an artelʺ, but in parentheses say: ʺlike any other land in the USSR is the state property of the whole people.ʺ And where it says: ʺassigned to the artel for perpetual use,ʺ add: ʺthat is, forever.ʺ Itʹs clear. Cannot be bought, sold or rented out. And then comes the allocation of land. I propose to formulate this point in the following way: where it says: ʺfrom the socialized land plots are allocated for the personal use of collective farm households,ʺ I propose to say: ʺAllocated for the personal use of each collective farm household.ʺ This means that there should not be a single yard that does not have household land. I must say ʺdo not stand outʺ, but ʺstand outʺ1 * and not ʺsmall plots for the personal use of collective farm householdsʺ, but it must be said: ʺallocated for the personal use of each collective farm household on a small plot in the form of household landʺ, and not ʺhousehold lands.ʺ If so to speak, it may create confusion because there are courtyards in the south, where there are several lands. This means one yard, one household land. This means that this clause must be formulated as follows: ʺOf the socialized land plots, each collective farmyard is allocated for the personal use of a small estate plot in the form of a backyard land (a vegetable garden and a garden).ʺ

Further on the item on which the debate unfolded most of all. I do not agree with his comrades, who are the bravest and say, 1 / 10, 1 / 12 part. This is not true, firstly, we must make a reservation that the land under the buildings is also called household land. Comrade Kosheleva, like other comrades, believes that household land is all land, both under residential buildings and under crops. We believe that the part of the household land on which there are residential buildings should not be counted.

I believe that the conditions in our country are very diverse. If you take the cotton districts, and even irrigated land, cotton, this very intense culture, it gives a lot on a small plot of land, and I understand Uzbek, who says that more than 12 / 100 1 * should not be given. If we subtract the land under residential buildings, it is necessary, in my opinion, to about 1 / 4ha. After all, there will be every bird, every grain is needed ‐ the collective farm does not give them. If you take a tobacco region and give 1 hectare, then it can live happily ever after. If you take the suburban land here, in the Moscow region, if you also give 1 hectare, then it is no longer necessary because you have sown a vegetable garden or brought berries to the city ‐ and you live happily ever after. But there are areas where livestock will be abundant. If we take the areas of livestock or semi‐livestock, then, of course, 0.5 hectares will not be enough for them. We want to give such districts 50 sheep to each collective farm. There are areas of nomadic animal husbandry, in Kazakhstan we give 100 sheep for personal use, what can be done with 0.5 hectares? You canʹt do anything. Therefore, the conditions are diverse, and the solution must take this into account. You canʹt cut everyone under one parenthesis, especially what should you mean? You are brave here and you speak extreme speeches, but you must consider what is now in practice. Take the North Caucasus and a number of regions ‐ the Azov‐Black Sea region, Kabarda, some regions of Ukraine are large, some regions of the Voronezh and Kursk regions, there are one and a half hectares, and you will immediately cut it off from the peasant. It will not work, there will be great discontent. The more the collective farm economy encompasses collective farm households, and the more the collective farm system is introduced into life, the less will the collective farm household strive to expand its personal economy. We must take this into account. We began to plant collective farms on a massive scale for only three years. The old society took hundreds of years to build, and if you think that the new society can be built in three years, you are wrong. You cannot build a new society in three years. More years are needed to strengthen the collective farm system properly, and in order not to drive the collective farmers away from themselves and not to generate unnecessary and completely unnecessary discontent, one must reckon with their opinion. You are progressive people, I understand you that you care very much about the collective farm system, about the collective farm economy. But are all collective farmers like you? You are a minority; the majority thinks differently. Should we reckon with this, or not? It is necessary. Therefore, I believe that you must make a decision by virtue of which the size of the personal land of the collective farm could fluctuate depending on local conditions. There should not be less than a quarter of a hectare, up to 0.5 hectares, and in some areas up to 1 hectare. I am afraid that this is too bold, what I am saying may even need to be raised. that you care very much about the collective farm system, about the collective farm economy. But are all collective farmers like you? You are a minority; the majority thinks differently. Should we reckon with this, or not? It is necessary. Therefore, I believe that you must make a decision by virtue of which the size of the personal land of the collective farm could fluctuate depending on local conditions. There should not be less than a quarter of a hectare, up to 0.5 hectares, and in some areas up to 1 hectare. I am afraid that this is too bold, what I am saying may even need to be raised. that you care very much about the collective farm system, about the collective farm economy. But are all collective farmers like you? You are a minority; the majority thinks differently. Should we reckon with this, or not? It is necessary. Therefore, I believe that you must make a decision by virtue of which the size of the personal land of the collective farm could fluctuate depending on local conditions. There should not be less than a quarter of a hectare, up to 0.5 hectares, and in some areas up to 1 hectare. I am afraid that this is too bold, what I am saying may even need to be raised. There should not be less than a quarter of a hectare, up to 0.5 hectares, and in some areas up to 1 hectare. I am afraid that this is too bold, what I am saying may even need to be raised. There should not be less than a quarter of a hectare, up to 0.5 hectares, and in some areas up to 1 hectare. I am afraid that this is too bold, what I am saying may even need to be raised.

Kalinin. Comrade Stalin, we donʹt have enough land.

Stalin. In any case, for the time being, what I am proposing will be enough not to cause discontent among the majority of collective farmers, who now have more than 0.5 hectares.

Voroshilov. These are still a minority.

Stalin. I would not say that. In Kabarda, not a minority, in Maikop, too, not a minority, take the Southern Don ‐ also not a minority. Take some areas of Ukraine. There is nothing to hide here, I must say frankly, and a Bolshevik means a person who is not afraid of the truth, no matter how bad it looks, and he tells it all to the end. There are yards with 4 hectares each. I saw it myself. Hereʹs to the extreme of not to strike and to you as a progressive people, have taken into account the mood of the army, which you are doing, and she had several other moods, it is necessary to take the average, and the average will be such ‐ from 1 / 4 to 1 / 2ha. For example, we will give Koshelevoy a hectare, the eastern part of Siberia has special farms, where 3‐4 cows can be used for personal use, otherwise it is impossible. In Kazakhstan, where there is animal husbandry, 8 hectares are given for personal use. There is no agriculture, agriculture does not play any role there; all people live by animal husbandry only.

How do you want to disregard this? It must be considered. Different conditions, different people. We are writing the law. And the charter is the highest law, the basic law of building a new society.

If you want to write a law not for one collective farm, but for the whole country, everything must be taken into account, all the variety of conditions.

I therefore propose to formulate this controversial point as follows: ʺThe size of the household land that is in the personal use of the collective farmyard (not counting the land under residential buildings)ʺ, not counting Comrade Koshelev. You see, I am making a concession ‐ “these sizes can fluctuate from 0.25 hectares (these are suburban areas, obviously, tobacco, cotton and others) to 0.50 hectares, and in some areas ‐ up to 1 hectare ( voices: Correct), depending on the regional and district conditions, determined by the Peopleʹs Commissars of the Union Republics on the basis of the instructions of the USSR Peopleʹs Commissars. ʺ The Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land determines in which areas how to maneuver. If you accept this thing, I think it will come out better.

It should be said: ʺdraft animals are socialized, all agricultural implementsʺ, and put in brackets: ʺplow, harrow, and the rest of the small implements are not socialized.ʺ

Chernov. And the thresher?

Stalin. You can put in brackets ‐ plow, harrow, thresher. The parentheses will open after the word ʺinventoryʺ. The rest of the paragraph remains unchanged.

Voice. Then it is better to say: ʺall agricultural instruments of production.ʺ

Stalin. A shovel is also an agricultural tool. Kaganovich. The thresher can be recorded.

Kalinin. ʺPlow and harrowʺ ‐ that says it all.

Stalin. ʺPlow, harrow, thresher, mower.ʺ

Kalinin. The mower and thresher are socialized even now.

Stalin. In all other respects, we will leave the item unchanged.

Next paragraph. The draft says: ʺthey do not socialize and remain in the personal use of a member of the artelʺ ... 2 * I must say instead of ʺmember of the artelʺ ‐ ʺcollective farmyard.ʺ These are residential buildings. Here we are dealing with a collective farmyard, and therefore instead of a ʺmember of the artelʺ we must say ʺcollective farmyardʺ.

At the end of this paragraph, it says: ʺoutbuildings necessary for the maintenance of livestock, which is in the personal use of the collective farmer.ʺ Instead of the word ʺcollective farmerʺ it is necessary to say, ʺcollective farmyardʺ.

I have no amendments to the next point.

Then we are talking about the allocation of livestock for personal use. It says here: ʺFrom the socialized draft animals, the board of the artel, if necessary, allocates several horses to serve the personal needs of the members of the artels.ʺ After the words: ʺfor service,ʺ you must say: ʺfor a fee,ʺ and the board decides, in kind or in money. Here you can admit a monetary payment, why not?

ʺThe artel organizes livestock farms.ʺ Better to say: ʺThe artel organizes a commercial livestock farm, and in the case of a large number of livestock, several commercial farms.ʺ If you have 5 ‐ 10 pigs, you do not need to create a separate farm. You donʹt need to create a specialization to the point of insanity. Management should be one, and the cattle will be in different premises, and having several departments is unnecessary.

Kaganovich. ʺMixed farms can be arranged.ʺ

[Stalin:] You can say: ʺOrganizes a mixed commercial livestock farm, and if there is a large number of livestock, several specialized commercial farms.ʺ

So, this point should be formulated as follows: ʺThe artel organizes a mixed livestock commercial farm or, in the case of a large number of livestock, several specialized livestock commercial farms.ʺ

A controversial issue will follow. As for the grain, cotton, beet, flax, hemp, potato, tea and tobacco regions, a collective farmyard can have a cow and up to three young animals for personal use. Apparently, most of the delegates are inclined to put one cow in the yard and up to two young heads, and not up to three heads. It will be possible to say so, as it says here: ʺOne cow and up to two young heads.ʺ

As for the sows, there is discord, some stand for one sow, others for two.

Kalinin. It says up to two, so you can have one.

[Stalin:] If it is said up to two, then they will have two. It must be said:

ʺOne sow or, if the collective farm board finds it necessary, two sows.ʺ

[Stalin:] If the board finds that it is not dangerous for the collective farm, then it will say keep two sows, and if it finds it dangerous, it will say keep one sow.

Voices from the field. It is right.

[Stalin:] It speaks of a collective farmyard. This means that this clause must be formulated as follows: “Each collective farm in grain, cotton, beet, linseed, hemp, potato, tea and tobacco regions can have a cow for personal use, up to two young cattle, one sow, or, if the board finds necessary, two sows, up to 20 hives. ʺ

Voice. Up to 20, up to 20.

[Stalin:] An unlimited number of birds and rabbits and up to twenty hives, so that the men do not get offended.

The next note is the most controversial case. In the note, only two groups of farms are indicated: one group of farms is non‐nomadic animal husbandry, and the other group is nomadic animal husbandry.

I propose, in addition to two groups, to add a third: semi‐livestock farming. There are such farms. I propose to formulate this very significant note as follows:

“Exceptions are allowed, firstly, for semi‐livestock regions (like the Far East, like Eastern Siberia, like the western part of Buryat‐Mongolia, like some regions of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, maybe include such regions as the old regions of highly developed dairy farms ‐ Vologda, Cherepovets and, perhaps, some areas of the Northern Territory, to the north of Vologda) ʺ.

Kaganovich. And maybe some areas of Polesie and Ukraine.

Stalin. Maybe. Let it be determined by the USSR Peopleʹs Commissariat of Agriculture together with the Peopleʹs Commissars of the Union republics.

Voice from the place. About the deer.

Stalin. Of course, this can also be taken into account.

This means that the first group ‐ an exception is made for areas of a semi‐livestock nature, where it is allowed to have in the personal use of a collective farmyard from 2 to 3 heads of cattle, from 20 to 25 sheep and goats together, from 2 to 3 sows.

Chernov (chairman). Comrade Stalin, just say not up to three heads of cattle, but up to three cows.

Stalin. Obviously, cows. If a bull starts up, what can you do with it?

What about a cow without a bull?

Chernov. Young animals are still considered there.

Stalin. Except for the young.

Secondly, for areas of non‐nomadic livestock raising, where agriculture plays an insignificant role, for example, I take the mountainous regions of the North Caucasus, Dagestan, Karachay, where people do not live by farming, where agriculture plays a completely subordinate role. I mean the mountainous regions of Tajikistan, then the mountainous regions of Azerbaijan and Karabakh, regions of Georgia. There you can be allowed to have in the personal use of the collective farmyard from 4 to 5 heads of cattle with offspring, from 30 to 40 sheep and goats together, from 2 to 3 sows with offspring.

And thirdly, an exception should be allowed for areas of nomadic animal husbandry. I mean a number of regions of Kazakhstan, where they have no idea about agriculture, livestock roam, none of your 30‐40 hectares will be enough for them. They need thousands of hectares because they wander. I mean the part of Buryat‐Mongolia, where people also roam along with cattle and there is no agriculture. They always buy bread, down to the last pound. I mean the Nogais in the North Caucasus, people who also roam with livestock.

Yakovlev. And the Kalmyks.

Stalin. Partly Kalmyks, where nomadic animal husbandry also predominates. There you can be allowed to have in the personal use of the collective farmyard from 8 to 10 heads of cattle, from 100 to 150 sheep and goats, from 2 to 3 sows. They probably wonʹt have pigs.

Mikoyan. You can feed acorns.

Stalin. Maybe there will be some waste, acorns, oak trees. Donʹt talk about sows in the third section. Hereʹs the first note.

Kaganovich. Instead of a note, a paragraph would be better, Comrade Stalin.

Budyonny. Cattle or cattle?

Stalin. There you have to make a reservation about horses. They must put up to 10 heads 1 *, camels must be put from 5 to 8 heads. It is impossible to live there without it, keep in mind.

Our country is big, the conditions are very different. If this is not taken into account by the charter of the artel, which covers all regions of the vast country, the charter will cost them nothing. There are semilivestock farms, for which a special rate is needed. There are seminomadic livestock farms, for which an increased rate is needed. And there are livestock breeding, purely nomadic farms, for which a higher rate will be required.

Here comrades suggest, maybe not to stipulate in a note, but as a separate paragraph.

Kaganovich. Of course, this is not a note, but a whole program.

Stalin. It is possible as a separate item. Then the charter will have an allunion character. And each district almost recognizes itself, realizes that its interests were taken into account.

If this is accepted, it can be formulated as a separate clause, entrusted to a group of comrades, they will do it, or I will do it myself.

A few words about the comments of the commune representative. Dzerzhinsky Chelyabinsk region    

You see, I propose not to make any special reservations about such communes, firstly, because we are writing the charter of the artel for the artel, and not for the commune. Secondly, because they have a special position. If all our artels were in such a position as the commune is rich, well‐organized, well‐organized people, good personnel, a lot of cattle, God has given equipment, as much inventory is available ...

Kaganovich. Milk is received ...

Stalin. ... I would like all the artels to achieve these conditions, but the fact is that there are only a few such communes in our country.

It is not worth writing down a law for them now that they must give out livestock for personal use. Letʹs not destroy this commune. Letʹs see how long she lives like this. Where is this comrade from the commune? (Turning to Comrade Praporshchikov.) I personally doubt, I am not entirely sure that you will be able to hold out to the end of this matter.

Voice. This already exists in a number of other areas.

[Stalin:] Units. There were many of them. After the artels began to develop and enter into force, the communes became few. They began to rearm, rebuild, so that the collective farmyard had something at its disposal, so that it would not be deprived of its last livestock. Is there a bird too?

Ensigns. And we have a lot of birds. We distributed poultry and pigs to communards, but no cows.

Stalin. I don’t think that your esteemed commune could hold out to the end of this matter, because you must understand, what is the artel and, in general, our entire collective farm movement based on? On the fact that we proceed not from denying the personal interests of the collective farmer, but from combining his personal interests with public interests and, if you like, adapting personal interests to public interests. Man is man. He wants to have something for himself. He wants to have some livestock. He doesnʹt want to get milk from the common boiler. And he wants to have his own cow. There is nothing criminal in this. And the personal interests of the collective farmyard, which consists of family members, which, in addition to common interests, have their own private interests, is not understood by everyone. And this must be understood.

If you want to strengthen the artel, if you want a collective‐farm mass movement, a massive collective‐farm movement that should embrace millions of households, and not just a few or hundreds, if you want to achieve this, under current conditions you must take into account, in addition to the general interests of collective farmers, their personal interests. The collective farmer wants to have pocket money. Required. He has guests. He wants to have milk, meat and anything, a little. He himself visits, and, of course, it is unpleasant for him if the person to whom he came to visit has nothing, if he has to take from the common barn. All this is unpleasant. And this must be considered. This is a vital necessity that will take its toll.

Brace yourself as long as you can, but how there is later ‐ I no longer know. I believe that your Communards will soon demand a cow from you.

Ensigns. Comrade Stalin, we do not have such collective farmers.

Stalin. Well, as long as you have a lot of products, it may not be required. Weʹll see. In any case, the fact that the comrades have a commune would be wrong for the vast majority of the peasants. Wrong and unacceptable. It will take a long time to develop artels, to rework human psychology for a long time, to re‐educate this mood so that people understand that everything must be taken from the common pot.

To take everything according to your needs from a common boiler, you need to have a lot of products. There are a lot of products. Well, in one commune there is a lot of food, but in the artel there is no. I know the history of the collective farm movement in the Chelyabinsk region. At one time there were only communes, three years ago. Right?

Voice. Right.

[Stalin:] There were too many communes. We were amazed. Our artels are difficult to organize throughout the country, but they have many communes. They began to figure out what was the matter. The peasant reasoned like this: if the commune, then the seeds can be eaten, the state will give. When it was explained to him that they would not give you seeds for nothing, that you need to work and work skillfully, the communes collapsed then.

Ensigns. Since 1930, thanks to the government, we have provided 24 tractors 1 * .

Stalin. In the Urals then, out of all the collective farms, you had several cooperatives for joint processing, about 60 ‐ 70% of the communes and about 25% of the cooperatives. That was the case. Then the communards thought that we would give land for free, meat would be given for free, bread for free and whatever. By the way, everyone swore: with mugs in their hands, they stood and waited until they were given milk. Then the further, the more communes became. How many communes do you have now?

From place. The only one. (Laughter.)

[Stalin:] So letʹs not touch it. Let him lead his commune as long as he has enough strength, and if later it becomes necessary to rebuild the artel from the commune, there is no harm in this.

And for all the other members of this meeting, I must say that you do not at all take into account the personal interests of the collective farmers when you say that one tenth of a hectare of private land should be given to the collective farmer. Some think that the cow should not be given, others think that the sow should not be given. In general, you want to squeeze the collective farmer. This case will not work. When clamped, they give a return. It is necessary to raise the level of people as the consciousness of collective farmers develops, as they re‐educate them and as products accumulate in the artel. And if you have little food in your artel and you cannot give individual collective farmers, their yards, everything they need, you cannot take upon yourself in order to satisfy both the socialized and the personal. Then it is better to arrange some division: such and such an area of work is public, and such and such is personal. Better to admit directly, openly and honestly, that the collective farm household should have its own private household, small but personal. It is better to proceed from the fact that there is an artel economy, public, large, large, serious for the satisfaction of social needs, and there is a personal economy. As long as there is a family, children, personal needs and tastes, then this cannot be ignored. And do not overly pinch the personal interests of the collective farmers. Not too much. And donʹt over‐tighten the string. It wonʹt do. Consider the personal interests of the collective farmers. Adapt these interests to the public but reckon with them. In addition, consider that the country is very large, the conditions are different: there are grain areas, there are non‐grain areas, there are nomadic, there are livestock, there are seminomadic, there is a purely agricultural economy, there is a semiagricultural, etc. All this must be taken into account ...

From the Dnepropetrovsk region. ... 1 * He has grapes, milk, and poultry, you go, start to prove that you need to work, that the collective farm suffers, that I will be fined from the board, that you need to work, but he does not go, does not pay attention collective farm. If we all went about our individual business, our collective farm public goods would suffer. But there are also conscious ones who have a lot of their own good but go to work.

Here it is said in the charter: “For mismanagement and negligence towards public property, for absenteeism without good reason to work, for poor quality work and other violations of labor discipline and the charter, the board imposes penalties on the guilty, in accordance with the internal regulations, for example: redo substandard work no accrual of workdays, warning, reprimand, censure at a general meeting, entry on the black board, a fine of up to 5 workdays, transfer to a lower job, temporary suspension from work.

In cases where all measures of education and punishment taken by the artel are invalid, the board puts before the general meeting the question of exclusion from the artel with regard to incorrigible members of the artel. ʺ

Here you have the means of influence. After all, it happens when one incorrigible bummer cannot be corrected in any way, but you still have to try all the means of influence. And there are people who are unconscious. Where to throw them away? It is necessary to make them conscious, to instill in them, to try to correct them, and then, if it doesn’t work, move on to measures of punishment, penalties, and then exclude them.

Why, because of one or two idlers, should the other honest workers be deprived of the right to have their own private household? This is wrong. It is necessary to punish and correct. This is stated in the charter.

Voice. Here the woman raised a very important issue. I work and my wife works on the collective farm. I work at a good job, I earn 300 ‐ 400 workdays, but my wife does not want to work, to earn money for me. How to be in such a time?

Kaganovich. Do you want to give an example, or do you want to say that your wife does not want to work?

The same voice. No, just an example.

Kaganovich. Then itʹs embarrassing to put your wife to shame at such a meeting. (Laughter.)

Chernov (chairman). We will no longer have a debate. Allow me to vote on Comrade Stalinʹs proposal. It is clear to everyone. I vote ... Who is for?  .. Who is against?  ..

Chernov. Comrade Stalin has the floor.

Stalin. Comrades, this is not a charter, this is an approximate charter 112 , this is a general charter for all districts. Based on these exemplary bylaws, which you will approve, if you approve, the different areas are to develop their present bylaws. Because, if you look at grain‐growing regions, why talk about nomadic animal husbandry in the charter of these regions? They donʹt have nomadic animal husbandry. Why talk about him? Why talk about cotton production if they donʹt have it?

This is a rough charter. Here are the general provisions, the foundation. On this foundation, you yourself must build in the region your charter for the collective farm in your native language. This approximate charter will be printed in all languages that exist in the USSR. You can already add all sorts of little things to your charter. And here we have worked out the general foundations, and therefore we must abandon all minor amendments, we must take the bull by the horns, take the basis. This is a general clarification so that people know that this is not a charter, but only an approximate charter, i.e., the canvas on which you will embroider your charters in the field. Livestock breeding areas, nomadic, will have their own charter based on local conditions. Grain crops have their own charter, and there will be no word about nomadic farming. Linen districts will have their own charter, why talk about hilling cotton in it?

We will probably adopt a general resolution at the congress of collective farmers, if the congress approves an approximate charter, which, on the basis of this approximate charter, oblige regional organizations to assist collective farmers in developing their specific regulations in relation to specific conditions. Voice. Right, right.

In livestock regions, more must be said about livestock, in grain crops ‐ about grain and nothing about nomadic animal husbandry. This is a general comment.

Now about the amendments. Here you have a clause on manure. What, this manure will be taken only from the farm or from the collective farmyard?

Chernov. And from the collective farmyard.

Stalin. Then it is necessary to say: ʺthe introduction of manure into the land both from the farm and from the collective farmyardʺ, put a comma, and after that: ʺthe introduction of mineral fertilizers.ʺ Then it will be clear. Donʹt you take from the collective farmyard? Take it. Take as much as you can take. This amendment must be made.

Voice from the place. We sat all evening yesterday and went through one sheet. Are we going to look at one sheet today? Today comrades are speaking and talking about manure. Here you need to act specifically, introduce something new. And then, if today there is one leaf, tomorrow there is one leaf, then how many days you will sit here, and we did not come here to visit. Yesterday a leaf, today a leaf, what in the end?

Chernov. Enough. We believe that the item ʺaʺ is finished. We pass to point ʺbʺ.

Voices from the field. No add‐ons.

Stalin. The comrades want the position of the collective farms in the plan to be taken into account. Indeed, in our regional organizations there are people who rework plans. Perhaps it could be said so: ʺthe artel accepts to exact execution in terms of sowing, raising fallow, interrow cultivation, harvesting, threshing and autumn plowing, taking into account the situation of collective farms and especially the collective farm, as well as the state plan for the development of animal husbandry.ʺ But it is necessary to introduce: “taking into account the state and peculiarities of the collective farm,” it must be said both about the peculiarities and the state of the collective farms, for they are not the same thing.

Chernov. What are the amendments to paragraph ʺdʺ?

Voice . It is necessary to make such an addition. The charter says: ʺto fully use, on a voluntary basis, all available draft power, all implements, agricultural tools, seeds and other means of production belonging to the artel.ʺ Here we must add about the draft force. Her in the Odessa region. lacks. Here you need a tractor.

Stalin. It is said: ʺhe pours seeds for sowing and fodder for feeding livestock in the amount of 10‐15%.ʺ It should be added: ʺfor the entire annual need.ʺ Further: ʺas well as for insurance against crop failure and so on in the amount of 10‐15%ʺ, in a word, ʺfor the entire annual need.ʺ Chernov. We pass to point 14.

Stalin. As for making the work of pregnant and lactating women easier, one or two lines should be included about the release of pregnant women for 1 month. before childbirth and for a month after childbirth with the maintenance of half the amount.

Delegate from her seat. It depends on how the woman worked, good or bad.

Chernov. Then she earned little, and the average earnings will be less.

Stalin. Maybe add this: with regard to pregnant and lactating women, it is necessary to facilitate the work with the release of pregnant and lactating women for 1 month. before delivery and 1 month. after childbirth with maintenance at half their average earnings.

Chernov. We pass to point 14. We will read out paragraph by paragraph. ( Reads out the seventh paragraph.)

Voice from the place. It says here: ʺTo charge 10‐15% to the shock workers, and to the foreman up to 20%.ʺ Where to get these workdays from?

Voice from the place. We must take from the team that worked worse, otherwise we have nowhere to take workdays.

And if one brigade works well, five brigades work excellently, and one brigade works poorly, then those brigades do not have enough workdays. This means that there must be as many excellent brigades, as many bad ones.

Kalinin. It is clear that the total number of workdays needs to be increased.

Chernov. This means that he receives 10% more than what is credited to him. Letʹs better vote this paragraph as amended by Comrade Yakovlev. Accepted.

Stalin. I must also say about those teams that do not perform tasks.

Chernov. There is a proposal to make an addition to this point in relation to teams that work unscrupulously and give low yields, poor wool yields, poor milk yield, poor maintenance of young animals, they should be given a discount of up to 10%.

Stalin. Teams working poorly or not working hard?

Chernov. Who is in favor of accepting Comrade Stalinʹs amendment? The amendment was accepted ...

Stalin. A deputy is necessary, even if the collective farm is not very large. It must be said that small collective farms, which are very tiny in the north, will probably turn into large ones, because it is more difficult for small collective farms to exist.

A deputy is needed in every collective farm. If there is no deputy, then the chairman will have to sit in the office and write papers, he cannot go anywhere, cannot send anyone to the brigade for checking, etc. Finally, the chairman can get sick. Who will replace him? The collective farm must have a permanent deputy chairman who is obliged to study the case, replace the chairman, improve his qualifications, etc.

Delegateʹs voice. You just need to make a reservation that he is not released.

Stalin. It does not say that he is being released.

Delegateʹs voice. It must be said that he is not released.

Chernov. On large collective farms, he can be released.

Stalin. If there is a large collective farm, it is necessary to release a deputy in it, if it is a small one, it should not. Therefore, we are silent on these issues, we leave it to the artel itself to decide where it will be released and where it will not.

Voice, I have such an addition: it is not enough to collect a meeting 2 times a month, you need 3 times a month.

Yakovlev. The charter says: ʺAt least twice a month.ʺ

Voice. Our troikas meet every day, but general meetings rarely meet, and, in my opinion, 2 times a month is not enough.

Yakovlev. That is the trouble with us, it turns out that the board, the troika get together almost every day in order not to gather a general meeting later. Here in the charter, it says: ʺcollect at least twice a month.ʺ This does not mean that you cannot collect three or four times. It is necessary that the board does not replace the general meeting. And we have a special point about the general meeting.

Ksenofontov. One more addition. Since there will be no further item on the chairpersons, I propose to speak here about the payment procedure for the chairman. We have the following proposal: the collective farm chairman receives both in‐kind and monetary income in the artel for all his workdays [for] a very big job. And the whole good organization of work on a collective farm depends on what kind of chairman is, and the pay is equal to that of an ordinary collective farmer. Canʹt a collective farm chairman be a good drummer? ‐ of course it can, but not every drummer can be a good chairman. The value of the labor of a collective farm chairman is paid low, and collective farm chairmen, especially on large collective farms, are offended when the work is done well 1*, itʹs a shame that his work is paid low. Why shouldnʹt the chairmen be paid both in kind and in money, depending on the performance of their work: a job is done well ‐ get it, poorly done ‐ we wonʹt pay. Here are my considerations to consider.

I think that with regard to the chairmen of collective farms, their deputies, if they have not been released, then in relation to the heads of livestock farms, and perhaps also in relation to bookkeepers and accountants, this issue will have to be worked on. In relation to these people, who make up permanent management cadres and are of great value for the artel, it may be possible to give additional cash income in addition to the usual calculations for workdays. Letʹs just say, if the collective farm has no more than 500 hectares, depending on the size of the collective farm, give the chairman 50 rubles each. I say approximately. If more than 500 hectares ‐ up to 1 thousand hectares ‐ 75 or 100 rubles, if 2 thousand hectares ‐ up to 125 rubles. Take a scale in accordance with the size of the sown area of the collective farm and depending on the responsibility that the chairman of the collective farm bears.

The same is true for other categories, say, farm managers, accountants, bookkeepers, because you cannot satisfy them by nature alone. Now our monetary economy will develop. There will be a lot of goods. Money is such a thing that makes it possible to better maneuver. Maybe a person wants to buy something, and not get bread. In my opinion, it is necessary to establish the principle of additional monetary payment for workdays.

Chernov. How will we include it in the charter, or will we issue it as a separate resolution?

Stalin. It is possible by a separate decree; it can be included in the charter in the section ʺRemunerationʺ. There you can enter such a heading. It is possible and limited to a special resolution of the congress, if the commission makes such a proposal.

Kalinin. Such payment is still allowed.

Voice. We have a combined economy and small plots of land.

Stalin. We say: up to 500 hectares. This means that this includes 50, 100, and 200 hectares. And there will be one payment for this. And if the collective farm has from 500 to 1 thousand hectares, a different amount of payment, more than 1 thousand to 1.5 thousand, or 2 thousand there ‐ the third. We also have very large collective farms. It is necessary to establish the amount of cash payment in connection with the amount of land on the collective farm.

If this principle is approved, then you can instruct someone to formulate it and submit it on behalf of the commission to a meeting of the collective farm congress so that it be adopted in the form of a separate binding resolution. And if you like, you can add it to the model charter.

Voice. Add to the charter.

Kalinin. They still receive additional payments.

Yakovlev. His workdays are equated to the development of a drummer, and here he gets it in kind.

From the place. In our collective farm, the chairman receives a lot of workdays, and even payment in kind, and we have more than one chairman, but there is also his deputy, the foreman, the assistant to the foreman and the entire board, and they take one and a half workdays, and the chairman two workdays, while a good collective farmer‐ the drummer, who has calluses on his hands, receives 300 workdays, and the chairman received 500 workdays from us and took payment in kind for them: bread, and potatoes, and thatʹs all. As soon as they arrive from the area, they will press it first. It is not right.

Stalin. Not everything is clear to me, maybe she is right. I want to ask, how is your collective farm chairman, does he receive all the workdays or a part?

From the place. Everything, and I received everything in kind.

Stalin. Does the chairman get as many workdays as the best drummer can do?

From the place. No, he writes two workdays in a row, and a field grower one and a half.

Stalin. But tell me, how does the chairman get all his workdays: in kind or partly? 1 *


Voice. Not all, part.

From the place. So, I get 0.75 daily and 100 rubles. money. I get 22 workdays a month. I earn 220 workdays a year, and this is how the average collective farmer earns. Along with him, I get workdays.

Stalin. This means that not for all the workdays in kind, but as much as the best drummer can work out.

The question is very difficult. Letʹs put it aside in order to earn some money. The chairman is responsible for everything, he has many worries. If the farm does not work well, the chairman is responsible, not you ( referring to the Collective Farm , which spoke with Comrade. Stalin in Ukrainian). The chairman should receive more.

Since the question is complex and there are large differences, I propose to postpone this question. Letʹs not write anything into the charter for now, but we will discuss this issue separately with the collective farmers.

Obviously, it is necessary to gather representatives of large collective farms, medium and small collective farms and discuss this. It is necessary to properly suck this question, and now this question is postponed.

It is necessary to decide who will enter with a proposal to the II Congress of Collective Farmers about the fact that the model charter is considered the basis for drawing up the artel regulations, so that the approximate charter is immediately translated into all languages of the USSR and so that there is somebody that monitors behind this 3 *, Narkomzem, for example. Who will enter with this proposal?

Chernov. It will be necessary to decide.

Stalin. Commission. Until now, there was an approximate charter, and this approximate charter was considered a charter for each artel. The specific features of each artel were not taken into account for each district and region, and the approximate charter turned into a charter.

It just doesnʹt sound good.

This means that we must now adopt a draft resolution: the commission submits for approval to the Second Congress of Collective Farmers the question of what, in addition to the approximate charter, are approved, say, or better: on the basis of this approximate charter, the artels should have their own charters, taking into account the specific features of each artel, each region and area. This is one sentence.

Now the second sentence. Molotov and I were just talking, and he suggested an idea. Perhaps the commission should enter with a proposal to the Second Congress of Collective Farmers about organizing an agricultural exhibition in two yearsʹ time. Several years ago, we had an agricultural exhibition, where individual farms of all regions were presented. Now we have many collective farms, farms are more organized. It would be nice to create an All‐Union agricultural exhibition in two years, so that later the square and the well‐known premises of this exhibition can be turned into the All‐Union collective farmerʹs house. This is the second sentence. Then we will put all the gifts there and put the samovar there. A large samovar, we donʹt know where to give it (laughter).

Chernov. There is a proposal to enter on behalf of the commission with a proposal to the Second Congress of Collective Farmers‐Shock Workers that the main charter that will be adopted is only the basis on which the charters of the artel are developed, taking into account the specific situation. Who is in favor of entering our congress with this proposal, please raise your hands? Please omit.

1  * So in the text.

2  * Hereinafter, outlines of document.

3  * For the resolutions of the II All‐Union Congress of Collective Farmers‐Shock Workers, see: The Second All‐Union Congress of Collective Farmers‐Shock Workers: Verbatim Report. S. 237, 246.

111 Commission for consideration of the draft Model Charter of the agricultural artel in the amount of 167 people. was elected at the II congress of collective farmers‐shock workers on February 14, 1935.The commission included I.V. Stalin, V.M. Molotov, L.M. Kaganovich, K.E. Voroshilov, M.I. Kalinin, P.P. . Petrovsky and others, as well as representatives of the territories and regions of the USSR (Pravda. 1935, February 15). The chairman of the commission is M.A. Chernov. The commission began work on February 15. The results of the work were summed up in the report of MA Chernov ʺOn the work of the commission on the Model Charter of the agricultural artelʺ on February 17, 1935 (II All‐Union Congress of Collective Farmers‐Shock Workers: Verbatim Report. M., 1935, pp. 225 ‐ 232) ...

112Work on the Model Charter of the Agricultural Artel began at the end of 1929. The first version, which was recognized as unsatisfactory by the board of the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land, was presented on December 28. The draft revised by the Kolkhoz Center, after discussion and revision, was published on February 6, 1930. It was a declarative document that did not solve the main issues of the collective farm movement, which contributed to the desire of local leaders to socialize as much as possible, i.e., the actual creation of communes. In this regard, already on March 2, 1930, the amended Model Charter of the Agricultural Artel was published, which brought great clarity to the problems of the degree of socialization of property, streamlined membership and wages in collective farms (see: Ivnitsky N.A. Collectivization and dispossession ( the beginning of the 30s). M., 1996, pp. 78‐80). However, the 1930 charter did not specifically formulate the principles of organization.