Historical educational program. Who is a fist? (1 photo). Dispossession of peasants in the USSR: who are kulaks? Former kulaks

In the Russian village, a “fist” was most often called a prosperous peasant who received wealth by “enslaving” his fellow villagers and holding the whole “world” (rural community) “in a fist” (depending on himself). The nickname "fist" was given to rural peasants who had unclean, unearned income, in their opinion, usurers, buyers and merchants. The consciousness of the peasants has always been based on the idea that the only honest source of wealth is hard physical labor. The origin of the wealth of usurers and merchants was associated primarily with their dishonesty - a merchant, for example, was considered "a parasite of society, making a profit on objects obtained by other people's labor", because, according to the peasants engaged in direct production, "you can't deceive - you can't sell"

Initially, the term "fist" had an exclusively negative connotation, representing an assessment of a dishonest person, which was then reflected in the elements of Soviet propaganda. Back in the 1870s, A. N. Engelhardt, who studied the Russian peasantry, wrote:

R. Gvozdev, in his monograph “Kulak-usury and its socio-economic significance”, writes back in 1899 about the proximity of the concepts of a good owner and a good owner and a peasant-kulak, stating that “it is extremely difficult to distinguish between the sphere of kulak-usurious operations from enterprises of a purely economic nature”, “the kulak is the legitimate offspring of the process of primitive accumulation”.

Here is the original text: "Now the situation is such that every peasant who calls himself, perhaps, a working peasant - some people love this word very much - but if you call a working peasant one who has collected hundreds of poods of grain by his own labor and even without any hired labor, but now he sees that, perhaps, if he keeps these hundreds of poods, he can sell them not for 6 rubles, but sell them to speculators or sell them to an exhausted, starving urban worker who came with a hungry family, who will give 200 rubles per pood - such a peasant who hides hundreds of poods, who endures them in order to raise the price and get even 100 rubles per pood, turns into an exploiter - worse than a robber. Now let's compare it with what was said above. This is called pulling phrases out of context, turning the meaning of what was said, and not quoting.

At the same time, there are many contradictions and ambiguities in the distinction between the terms "middle peasant" and "kulak", which are found in the works of V. I. Lenin, which determined the ideology of Soviet power for many years, the very course of the dispossession policy. Sometimes Vladimir Ilyich nevertheless points to a certain sign of the kulaks - the exploitation of labor, delimiting it from the middle peasant:

“The middle peasant is a peasant who does not exploit the labor of others, does not live by the labor of others, does not in any way use the fruits of the labor of others, but works himself, lives by his own labor ... The middle peasant is the one who does not exploit and he himself is not exploited, who lives on small farms, on his own labor ... the middle peasant does not resort to the exploitation of other people's labor ..., lives on his own farms "

As a result, the complexity of this terminology is supplemented by the fact that a little later, V. I. Lenin also allows the exploitation of labor power by middle-class peasants and even the accumulation of capital:

In the economic sense, the middle peasantry should be understood as small landowners who own or lease small plots of land, but who, firstly, provide ... not only a meager maintenance of the family and household, but also the opportunity to receive a certain surplus, able, at least best years, turn into capital, and which, secondly, quite often (for example, in one farm out of two or out of three) resort to hiring someone else's labor force

The petty bourgeoisie can now be pushed into such a framework that it will participate with us in socialist construction ... Our policy towards the countryside must develop in such a direction that the restrictions that hinder the growth of a prosperous and kulak economy are moved apart and partly abolished. The peasants, all the peasants, must be told: get rich, develop your economy, and don't worry about being squeezed.

At the same time, nevertheless, “the authorities imposed an increased tax on the kulaks, demanded the sale of grain to the state at fixed prices, limited kulak land use, limited the size of the kulak economy .. but had not yet pursued a policy of liquidating the kulaks” . However, already in 1928, the course towards the kulak was curtailed, giving way to the course towards the liquidation of the kulaks as a class.

However, this phenomenon was only temporary in the life of the term "fist" and is associated with the active support of the peasantry during the New Economic Policy and a little earlier.

hired labor is systematically applied;
the presence of a mill, oil mill, grain mill, drying ..., the use of a mechanical engine ...,
rental of complex agricultural machines with mechanical engines
rental of premises
engaging in trade, usury, mediation, the presence of unearned income (for example, clergymen)

During the forced collectivization Agriculture, carried out in the USSR in the 1990s, one of the directions of state policy was the suppression of anti-Soviet speeches of the peasants and the associated “liquidation of the kulaks as a class” - “dispossession”, which involved the forcible and extrajudicial deprivation of wealthy peasants using hired labor, all means of production, land, civil rights, and eviction to remote areas of the country, and sometimes - execution.

On January 30, 1930, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a Resolution. According to this decree, kulaks were divided into three categories:

the first category is a counter-revolutionary asset, organizers of terrorist acts and uprisings,
the second category - the rest of the counter-revolutionary asset of the richest kulaks and semi-landlords,
the third category is the rest of the fists.

The heads of kulak families of the 1st category were arrested, and cases of their actions were referred to special construction units consisting of representatives of the OGPU, regional committees (krai committees) of the CPSU (b) and the prosecutor's office. Family members of kulaks of the 1st category and kulaks of the 2nd category were subject to eviction to remote areas of the USSR or remote areas of a given region (krai, republic) to a special settlement. The kulaks, assigned to the 3rd category, settled within the district on new lands specially allocated for them outside the collective farms.

It was decided to “eliminate the counter-revolutionary kulak asset by imprisonment in concentration camps, stopping against the organizers of terrorist acts, counter-revolutionary actions and insurgent organizations before using the highest measure of repression” (Article 3, paragraph a)

As repressive measures, the OGPU was proposed in relation to the first and second categories:

send 60,000 to concentration camps, deport 150,000 kulaks (Section II, Art. 1)
to exile to uninhabited and sparsely populated areas with the expectation of the following regions: Northern Territory 70 thousand families, Siberia - 50 thousand families, Urals - 20 - 25 thousand families, Kazakhstan - 20 - 25 thousand families with "the use of those expelled for agricultural work or crafts ”(section II, art. 4). The property of the deportees was confiscated, the limit of funds was up to 500 rubles per family.

The special summary of the OGPU dated February 15 contained the following report on the operation:

The joint Decree of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated August 7, 1932 "" ("law from the seventh-eighth", "law on spikelets") provides for the most stringent measures of "judicial repression" for theft of collective farm and cooperative property - execution with confiscation of property, in as a "measure of judicial repression in cases of protecting collective farms and collective farmers from violence and threats from kulak elements" provided for imprisonment for a term of 5 to 10 years with imprisonment in concentration camps without the right to amnesty.

On May 24, the Central Executive Committee of the USSR adopts the Decree “On the Procedure for the Restoration of Civil Rights of Former Kulaks,” according to which kulaks-special settlers who were previously deprived of a number of civil rights are individually restored.

The final rejection of the policy of dispossession is fixed by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of August 13, 1954 No. 1738-789ss “On the removal of restrictions on special settlements from former kulaks”, thanks to which many of the kulaks-special settlers received freedom.

The rehabilitation of persons subjected to dispossession and members of their families is carried out in accordance with the general procedure in accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation "" dated 10/18/1991 N 1761-1.

Notes

G. F. Dobronozhenko "Who is a fist: interpretation of the concept" fist "!"
G.F. Dobronozhenko "Who is a fist: interpretation of the concept of" fist ""
Engelgardt A.N. Letters from the village. 1872-1887 M., 1987 S. 521 - 522.
Postnikov V.E. South Russian peasantry. M., 1891
Gvozdev R. “Kulaks - usury and its social and economic significance. St. Petersburg, 1899
Yermolov A.S. Harvest failure and national disaster. SPb., 1892.
Great October Socialist Revolution. Encyclopedia. 3rd ed., add. M., 1987. S. 262; Brief political dictionary. 2nd ed., add. M., 1980. S. 207; Trapeznikov S.P. Leninism and the agrarian-peasant question: In 2 vols. M., 1967. V.2. “The historical experience of the CPSU in the implementation of the Leninist cooperative plan. S. 174.
Smirnov A.P. "Our main tasks for the development and organization of the peasant economy." M., 1925. S. 22; Pershin A. Two main sources of stratification of the peasantry // Life of Siberia. 1925. No. 3(31). C. 3.
Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 36. S. 447, 501, 59.
Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 38.
Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 41. S. 58.

The cousins of historians - physicists - begin any discussion with the words "let's agree on terms." Historians get along just fine without it. It's a pity. Sometimes it would be worth it. For example, who is a fist? Well, there’s nothing to think about: this is a “correct”, hardworking owner, ruthlessly ruined and destroyed by the Stalinist collectivization machine. Yes, but why should the collectivization machine destroy the “right” owner, who is neither a competitor nor a hindrance to it? He manages on his ten or twenty acres by the side of the collective farm - and let him manage it, but he wants to go to the collective farm. Why ruin it?

Not otherwise than out of infernal malice - for there is no economic answer here. It will not happen, because in the directives of the USSR authorities they constantly repeated: do not confuse kulaks and wealthy peasants! Therefore, there was a difference between them, and visible to the naked eye.

So what did the naked eye of a semi-literate county secretary see that is not visible to today's established historian? Let's remember school Marxism - those who still managed to learn in the Soviet school. How is a class defined? And the memory on the machine gives out: the attitude to the means of production. How does the attitude towards the means of production of a rightful owner differ from that of the middle peasant? Nothing! And the fist?

Well, if he was going to be destroyed "as a class", then he was a class, and this attitude was somehow different.

These townspeople will always confuse!

So who are these kulaks?

This issue was also of concern to the Soviet leadership. For example, Kamenev in 1925 argued that any farm with more than 10 acres of crops is a kulak farm. But 10 acres in the Pskov region and in Siberia are completely different areas. In addition, 10 tithes for a family of five and fifteen are also two big differences.

Molotov, who was responsible in the Central Committee for work in the countryside, in 1927 referred to peasants who rent land and hire fixed-term (as opposed to seasonal) workers as kulaks. But even the middle peasant could rent land and hire workers, especially the former.

Presovnarkom Rykov attributed well-to-do households using hired labor and owners of rural industrial establishments to kulak ones. This is closer, but somehow everything is vague. Why shouldn't a strong working owner have, for example, a mill or an oil mill?

What unites Kamenev, Molotov and Rykov? Only one thing: all three are born citizens. But the “all-Union headman” Mikhail Ivanovich Kalinin, a peasant by origin, gives a completely different definition. At a meeting of the Politburo devoted to cooperation, he said: usurious exploiting the local population, lending capital for growth, using funds at usurious interest.

An unexpected turn, isn't it? And Kalinin is not alone in this approach. As early as 1925, People's Commissar for Agriculture A.P. Smirnov wrote in Pravda, which served as the main practical, corrective guide for local figures: “In the prosperous part of the village, we must clearly distinguish between two types of farming. The first type of prosperous economy is purely usurious, engaged in the exploitation of low-capacity farms not only in the process of production (farm work), but mainly through all kinds of enslaving transactions, through village petty trade and mediation, all types of "friendly" credit with "divine" interest. The second type of prosperous economy is a strong labor economy, striving to strengthen itself as much as possible in terms of production ... "

Now this is a completely different matter! Not only and not so much an exploiter of farm laborers, but a village small merchant, an intermediary in transactions and, most importantly, a usurer.

Rural usury is a very special phenomenon. Money in growth in the village was practically not given. There, a system of natural usury was adopted - the calculation of loans went with bread, one's own labor or any services. (Looking ahead: that is why the so-called "sub-kulakists" - the "influence group" of the kulak - are mainly the poor.) And in any village, all the inhabitants knew very well who simply lends money (even at interest, if necessary), and who made it a trade in which he grows rich.

World-eating technology

A vivid picture of such a craft is drawn in a letter to the magazine "Red Village" by a certain peasant Philip Ovseenko. He starts, however, in such a way that you won’t dig.

“... They shout about the kulak that he is such and such, but just don’t turn around, but the kulak always turns out to be both thrifty and diligent, and pays taxes more than others. They shout that, they say, the peasants should not use other people's labor, hire a worker. But to this I must object that this is quite wrong. After all, in order to raise agriculture for our state, to multiply the peasant good, it is necessary to increase the sowing. And this can only be done by wealthy owners ... And that the peasant has a worker, this is only for the benefit of the state, and therefore it should first of all support such wealthy ones, because they are the support of the state. Yes, and the worker is also a pity, because if he is not given a job, he will not be found, and there are so many unemployed. And he is good at housekeeping. Who will give work to the unemployed in the village, or who will feed a neighbor with his family in the spring? .

Do you recognize the reasoning? The rhetoric of "social partnership" has hardly changed in 90 years. But this, however, is only a saying, and here the fairy tale began - about how exactly a kind person feeds neighbor and family...

“There are many other unfortunate peasants: either there is no horse, or there is nothing to sow. And we also help them out, because it is said that love your neighbors as brothers. You will give one horse a day, either to plow or go to the forest, and to the other you will sprinkle the seeds. Why, you can’t give for free, because good doesn’t fall from the sky. It has been earned through hard work. Another time, I would be glad not to give it, but it will come, it will directly lament: help me out, they say, there is hope for you. Well, you give the seeds, and then you take off half a half - this is for your own seeds. Moreover, at the gathering they will be called a fist, or an exploiter (that's also a word). This is for doing a good Christian deed…”

Ispolu - this is for half the harvest. With a yield of 50 poods per tithe, it turns out that the "benefactor" lends seeds to his neighbor at the rate of 100% for three months, at 35 poods - 50%. Balzac's Gobsek would have strangled himself with envy. By the way, he has not yet mentioned what he charges for the horse. And the horse was supposed to work out - where three days, and where a week for a day. Christ, if my memory serves me right, seems to have taught differently...

“It turns out differently: the other fights, fights and throws the ground, or rents it out. Every year he does not process. Either he will eat the seeds, or there is no plow, or something else. Come and ask for bread. Of course, you will take over the land, your neighbors will process it for you for debts and you will take off the harvest from it. What about the old owner? What you sow, you will reap. Who does not work - he does not eat. And besides, he himself voluntarily leased the land in a sober state. After all, again, do not rent it, it would not have been developed, a direct loss to the state. And so I again helped out - I sowed it, which means they should be grateful to me for this. Yes, but where is it! For such labors, they also defame me ... Let everyone know that the kulak lives by his labor, manages his household, helps out his neighbors and, one might say, the state rests on him. Let there be no name “kulak” in the countryside, because the kulak is the most industrious peasant, from whom there is no harm but benefit, and both the district peasants and the state itself receive this benefit.

From this sentimental letter it is clear why the peasants call the kulak a world-eater. In it, as in a textbook, almost the entire scheme of intravillage exploitation is described. In the spring, when there is no bread left in the poor households, the usurer's time comes. For a sack of grain to feed a starving family, a poor man will give two sacks in August. For seed bread - half the harvest. A horse for a day - several days (up to a week) of working off. In the spring, for debts or for a couple of sacks of grain, the fist takes his land from a horseless neighbor, other neighbors cultivate this field for debts, and the crop goes entirely to the “good owner”. Economic power over neighbors is followed by political power: at a village meeting, the kulak can automatically count on the support of all his debtors, he goes to the village council himself or sends his people there, and so becomes the true owner of the village, which now has no government.

Well, this is a completely different matter. This is already a class that uses its means of production quite differently from the middle peasant. And here is the question: will such a “benefactor” remain indifferent to the collective farm, which cooperates with the poor part of the village, thereby knocking out the fodder base from under it?

Greed ruined

Another "class" sign of the kulak is his specific participation in the grain trade. Accumulating large masses of grain, the kulaks did not release them to the market at all, deliberately raising prices. Under those conditions, it was actually work to organize a famine, so Article 107 for such citizens simply cried.

... In January 1928, in the midst of the "grain war", members of the Politburo dispersed throughout the country to manage grain procurement. On January 15, Stalin went to Siberia. Here is what he said in speeches to party and Soviet workers: “You say that the grain procurement plan is tense, that it cannot be fulfilled. Why not, where did you get that from? Isn't it a fact that you really have an unprecedented harvest this year? Isn't it a fact that this year's grain procurement plan for Siberia is almost the same as last year?

Please note: the complaint about the impossibility of plans is, it seems, the leitmotif of all grain procurement campaigns. The reason is clear: if you complain, maybe the plan will be knocked down.

“... You say that the kulaks do not want to hand over their grain, that they are waiting for a rise in prices and prefer to conduct unbridled speculation. It's right. But the kulaks are not just waiting for a price increase, but are demanding a threefold increase in prices compared to state prices. Do you think it is possible to satisfy the kulaks? The poor and a considerable part of the middle peasants have already handed over grain to the state at state prices. Is it possible to allow the state to pay three times more for bread to the kulaks than to the poor and middle peasants?

Now such actions are punished in accordance with the antimonopoly legislation, and for some reason no one complains. Maybe it's an allergy to terms?

“... If the kulaks are conducting unbridled speculation on grain prices, why don't you attract them for speculation? Don't you know that there is a law against speculation - article 107 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, by virtue of which those guilty of speculation are brought to justice, and the goods are confiscated in favor of the state? Why don't you enforce this law against grain speculators? Are you really afraid of disturbing the tranquility of the kulak gentlemen?!...

You say that your prosecutorial and judicial authorities are not ready for this case... I saw several dozen representatives of your prosecutorial and judicial authorities. Almost all of them live among the kulaks, are freeloaders among the kulaks, and, of course, try to live in peace with the kulaks. To my question, they answered that the kulaks had a cleaner apartment and better food. It is clear that one cannot expect anything worthwhile and useful for the Soviet state from such representatives of the prosecutorial and judicial authorities ... "

For some reason, we also think so...

"I propose:

a) demand from the kulaks the immediate surrender of all surplus grain at state prices;

b) in the event that the kulaks refuse to obey the law, bring them to justice under Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR and confiscate their grain surpluses in favor of the state so that 25% of the confiscated grain is distributed among the poor and low-powered middle peasants at low state prices or in long-term loan."

Then, in January, the Siberian Regional Committee decided: cases under Art. 107 to investigate on an emergency basis, by visiting sessions of people's courts in 24 hours, to pass sentences within three days without the participation of the defense. At the same meeting, it was decided to issue a circular from the regional court, the regional prosecutor and the OGPU plenipotentiary, which, in particular, forbade judges to issue acquittals or suspended sentences under Article 107.

Only the level of corruption can serve as a certain “mitigating circumstance” for the authorities - without a circular, lured law enforcement officers would not do anything at all. In addition, Article 107 began to be applied when the amount of commodity surpluses on the farm exceeded 2,000 poods. It is somehow difficult to imagine the possibility of an investigative or judicial error if the owner has 32 tons of bread in the barn. What, they folded grain by grain and did not notice how it accumulated? Even taking into account the fact that later this amount was reduced - on average, confiscations amounted to 886 pounds (14.5 tons) - it is still difficult.

However, given the trifling term of imprisonment under Article 107 - up to one year (actually up to three, but this is in the case of conspiracy of merchants, and you try to prove this conspiracy), the main punishment was just the confiscation of surplus. If you didn't want to sell bread, give it away for free.

Why so much bread?

As you can see, there is nothing unusual in this. IN emergency situations even the most market-oriented of the market states step on the throat of their own song and introduce laws against speculation - if they do not want their population to die of starvation en masse. In practice, the problem is solved simply: if the government loves bribes more than it is afraid of food riots, then laws are not introduced; if they give little or are scary, they are introduced. Even the Provisional Government, corrupt to the last limit, even then tried to realize the grain monopoly - however, it failed. And the Bolshevik Council of People's Commissars succeeded - in fact, this is the whole difference and hence all the resentment towards them of the "socialist brothers" in terms of agrarian policy.

But back to our fists. Let's count a little. With a yield of 50 poods per tithe, 800 poods is 18 tithes. In addition, the owners' own consumption, the feeding of farm laborers and livestock, the seed fund - which, with a large farm, will pull tithes, say, for seven. Total - 25 acres. In 1928, only 34,000 farms had plots of 25 acres or more, less than one per village. And about 3% of households were recognized as kulak, i.e. 750 thousand. And after all, many had not 800 pounds, but thousands, or even tens of thousands. Where, I wonder, did Stalin get the number he named in Siberia? “Look at the kulak farms: there the barns and sheds are full of grain, the bread lies under sheds due to the lack of storage places, the kulak farms have grain surpluses of 50-60 thousand pounds for each farm, not counting stocks for seeds, food, livestock feed. ..” Where did he find farms with such stocks? On the Don, in the Terek Territory, in the Kuban? Or is it a poetic exaggeration? But even if we reduce the figure announced by him by an order of magnitude, it still turns out 5-6 thousand pounds.

But here another question is more important. Even if we are talking about 800 pounds - where does so much bread come from? From your own field? There were not so many such fields in the USSR. So where?

The answer, in general, lies on the surface. First, do not forget about the natural usury, which was entangled in the village. All these "gratitudes", repayment of debts "in half", renting land and working off debts, sack after sack, went into the barns in hundreds and thousands of pounds. And secondly, let's think: how was the sale of grain in the village? It's good if the fair is located on the edge of the village, so that you can take your few bags there on a hump. And if not? And there is no horse either, so there is nothing to take out on anything? However, even if there is a sivka - is it really a desire to drive it for tens of miles with ten pounds? Meanwhile, money is needed - to pay the tax, and to buy at least something, but it is necessary.

Between the weak peasant and the market, there must be a village grain buyer - one who, in turn, will deal with the city wholesaler. Depending on the combination of greed and efficiency, he can give his fellow villagers either a little more or a little less than the state price - so that this penny does not force the poor peasant to go to the market or to the dump.

The village fist simply could not help but be a grain buyer - how can you miss such an income. However, he was. Let us quote again the report of the OGPU - the all-seeing eye of the Soviet government: « Lower Volga region. In the Lysogorsky District of the Saratov District, the kulaks and the prosperous are systematically engaged in grain speculation. Fists in the village B.-Kopny buy bread from the peasants and export it in large quantities to the city of Saratov. In order to grind bread out of turn, the kulaks solder the workers and the head of the mill.

North Caucasian region. In a number of places in the Kushchevsky and Myasnikovsky districts (Donskoy okrug), there is a massive grinding of grain for flour. Part of the grain growers is engaged in the systematic export and sale of flour in the city market ... Prices for wheat reach up to 3 rubles. for a pud. Prosperous and strong kulaks, buying on the spot for 200-300 pounds. bread, grind it into flour and take it on carts to other regions, where they sell it for 6-7 rubles. for a pud.

Ukraine . Khut fist. Novoselovki (Romny District) buys up grain through three poor peasants, who, under the guise of buying up bread for personal consumption, procure grain for it. Kulak grinds the purchased grain into flour and sells it at the market.

Belotserkovsky district. In the Fastovsky and Mironovsky districts, the kulaks organized their agents for buying up grain, which prepares grain for them in the surrounding villages and the nearest regions.

As we can see, at the village level, the private wholesaler and the kulak are one and the same character, a natural intermediary between the producer and the market. In fact, the kulak and the Nepman are two links in the same chain, and their interests are exactly the same: to rake up the market for themselves, not to let other players in, and first of all, the state.

The trouble was not only that the kulaks themselves played to raise prices, but even more so that they led other peasants along with them. Everyone who exported at least something to the market was interested in high grain prices, and the middle peasants, who cannot be attracted under Article 107, joined the boycott of state deliveries - if you apply it to those who have not a thousand, but a hundred poods in the barn, then why Why not immediately start a total requisition?

At the same time, almost half of the farms in the country were so weak that they could not feed themselves on their bread until the new harvest. The high prices of these peasants completely ruined, and they hung on the neck of the state. Thus, under the free market, the state twice sponsored merchants - first by buying bread from them at high prices set by them, and then by supplying cheap bread to the poor ruined by these same grain merchants. If there is a powerful trade lobby in the country that pays for politicians, this siphoning can go on forever, but it was not easy for Nepmen to buy members of the Politburo. Easier to kill...

All these problems - both world-eating and price gouging - were solved economically in the course of the agrarian reform conceived by the Bolsheviks, and rather quickly. If we take into account the vector of development, it becomes clear that the collective farms, provided with state benefits and state support, have every chance in a matter of years to turn into sufficiently cultivated farms with quite decent marketability (already in the early 30s, the grain procurement plan for them was set at approximately 30-35% of the gross harvest). And what follows from this? And it follows from this that if not 5%, but 50% of farms are collectivized, then private traders will simply lose the opportunity not only to play in the market, but in general to influence it - state deliveries of collective farms will cover all the needs of the country. And taking into account the fact that in the USSR bread was sold to the population for very low prices, the meaning of engaging in grain trading will disappear completely.

The kulak, deprived, on the one hand, of the bread siphoned off from the poor for debts, and on the other hand, of the opportunity to influence prices, can trade the products of its economy as it wants and where it wants. Placed in the position of not a large, but a small agricultural owner, he, from his economic niche-closet, will not be able to determine or decide anything.

A purely rhetorical question: will the NEP man and the kulak meekly put up with such plans of the authorities?

So who are the kulaks?

It is widely believed that these are the most industrious peasants, who began to live more richly due to their heroic labor, due to greater skill and diligence. However, kulaks were not called those who are richer, who live more satisfyingly.

Those who used the labor of farm laborers, that is, hired labor, and those who were engaged in usury in the countryside, were called kulaks. That is, a kulak is a person who gives money on interest, buys up the lands of his fellow villagers, and gradually dispossessing them of land, uses them as hired labor.

Fists appeared long before the revolution, and in principle it was a fairly objective process. That is, with the improvement of the land cultivation system, the most normal objective phenomenon is an increase in land plots. A larger field is easier to process, it turns out to be cheaper to process. Large fields can be cultivated with machinery - the processing of each individual tithe is cheaper, and, accordingly, such farms are more competitive.

All countries that moved from the agrarian to the industrial phase went through an increase in the size of land allotments. This is clearly seen in the example of American farmers, who today are few in the United States, but whose fields stretch far beyond the horizon. This refers to the fields of each individual farmer. Therefore, the enlargement of land plots is not only a natural fact, but even a necessary one. In Europe, this process was called pauperization: small-land peasants were driven off the land, the land was bought up and passed into the possession of landlords or rich peasants.

What happened to the poor peasants? Usually they were forced out to the cities, where they either went to the army, the navy, in the same England, or got a job at enterprises; or begged, robbed, starved to death. To combat this phenomenon in England, laws against the poor were introduced at one time.

And a similar process began in the Soviet Union. It started after civil war when the land was redistributed according to the number of eaters, but at the same time the land was in full use of the peasants, that is, the peasant could sell, mortgage, donate the land. This is what the kulaks took advantage of. For Soviet Union the very situation with the transfer of land to the kulaks was hardly acceptable, since it was associated exclusively with the exploitation of some peasants by other peasants.

There is an opinion that kulaks were dispossessed according to the principle - if you have a horse, then you are prosperous, which means you are a fist. This is wrong.

The fact is that the presence of means of production also implies that someone must work for them. For example, if the farm has 1-2 horses that are used as traction, it is clear that the peasant can work himself. If the farm has 5-10 horses as a traction force, it is clear that the peasant himself cannot work on this, that he must definitely hire someone who will use these horses.

There were only two criteria for determining a fist. As I have already said, this is usurious activity and the use of hired labor.

Another thing is that by indirect signs - for example, the presence of a large number of horses or a large amount of equipment - it could be determined that this fist was really using hired labor.

And there was a need to determine what the future path of development of the village would be. It was quite obvious that it was necessary to enlarge the farms. However, the path through pauperization (through the ruin of poor peasants and ousting them from the village, or turning them into hired labor), it was actually very painful, very long and promised really big sacrifices; example from England.

The second way that was considered was to get rid of the kulaks and carry out the collectivization of agriculture. Although there were supporters of both options in the leadership of the Soviet Union, those who advocated collectivization won. Accordingly, the kulaks, which were precisely the competition to the collective farms, had to be liquidated. It was decided to carry out the dispossession of kulaks as socially alien elements, and to transfer their property to the newly created collective farms.

What was the scale of this dispossession?

Of course, a lot of peasants were dispossessed. In total, more than 2 million people were dispossessed - this is almost half a million families. At the same time, dispossession went into three categories: the first category was those who resisted the Soviet regime with weapons in their hands, that is, the organizers and participants in uprisings and terrorist acts. The second category is other kulak activists, that is, people who opposed the Soviet regime, fought against it, but passively, that is, without using weapons. And finally, the third category is just fists.

What was the difference between the categories?

The fists belonging to the first category were dealt with by the “troikas of the OGPU”, that is, some of these fists were shot, some of these fists were sent to camps. The second category is families of kulaks of the first category, and kulaks and their families of the second category. They were deported to remote places in the Soviet Union. The third category - were also subject to deportation, but deportation within the region where they lived. It's like, let's say in the Moscow region, to evict from the vicinity of Moscow to the outskirts of the region. All these three categories recruited more than 2 million people with family members.

Is it a lot or a little? In fact, statistically, it turns out to be about one kulak family per village, that is, one village - one fist. In some villages, of course, several families of kulaks were evicted, but this only means that in other villages there were no kulaks at all, there were none.

And now more than 2 million kulaks were evicted. Where were they evicted? There is an opinion that they were evicted to Siberia, thrown almost into the snow, without property, without food, without anything, to certain death. In fact, this is also not true. Most of the kulaks, indeed, who were evicted to other regions of the country, they were evicted to Siberia. But they were used as so-called labor settlers - they built new cities. For example, when we are talking about the heroic builders of Magnitogorsk and we are talking about dispossessed evicted to Siberia, we are often talking about the same people. And the best example of this is the family of the first president Russian Federation. The fact is that his father was just dispossessed, and his further career developed in Sverdlovsk, as a foreman.

What terrible repressions were used against the kulaks? But here it is quite obvious, since he became a foreman among the workers, then probably the repressions were not very cruel. Defeat in rights, too, how to say, given that the son of a kulak later became the First Secretary of the Sverdlovsk Regional Party Committee.

Of course, during dispossession there were quite a few distortions, that is, sometimes there really was a situation when they tried to declare the middle peasants to be kulaks. There were moments when envious neighbors managed to slander someone, but such cases were isolated. Actually, the villagers themselves determined who was their kulak in the village and who should be got rid of. It is clear that justice did not always triumph here, but the decision on who the kulaks were was not made from above, not by the Soviet authorities, it was made by the villagers themselves. It was determined according to the lists presented by the committees, that is, the inhabitants of this very village, and it was decided who exactly the kulak was and what to do with him next. The villagers also determined the category to which the fist would be assigned: a malicious fist or, let's just say, a world-eater.

Moreover, the problem of kulaks also existed in Russian Empire where rich peasants managed to crush the village under them. Although the rural community itself partly protected against the growth of kulak landownership, and the kulaks began to emerge mainly after the Stolypin reform, when some became rich, actually bought up all the lands of their fellow villagers, forced the fellow villagers to work for themselves, became large sellers of bread, in fact, became already bourgeoisie.

There was another picture, when the same villagers, having declared the kulak a world-eater, safely drowned him in the nearest pond, because in fact all the wealth of the kulak is based on what he managed to take away from his fellow villagers. The point is that no matter how well people work in the countryside... why can't we let the hard-working middle peasant become a kulak? His wealth is limited by the size of his land. As long as he uses the land that his family received according to the principle of division according to the number of eaters, this peasant will not be able to get much wealth, because the yield in the fields is quite limited. Works well, works poorly, a relatively small field leads to the fact that the peasant remains quite poor. In order for a peasant to become rich, he must take something from other peasants, that is, this is precisely the displacement and dispossession of his fellow villagers.

If we talk about terrible repressions against kulaks and their children, then there is a very good resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, which says: common grounds and not obstruct their ability to travel to study or work.” The date of this decree is October 22, 1938.

Actually, collectivization turned out to be an alternative way to the gradual enlargement of farms due to pauperization. The peasants in those villages where there were no longer any kulaks were gradually reduced to collective farms (by the way, most often, quite voluntarily for themselves) and it turned out that for one village there was a common field, quite extensive, for which the equipment was allocated, with the help of which this field and processed. In fact, only kulaks were the victims of collectivization. And the kulaks, no matter how numerous the victims, made up less than 2% of the entire rural population of the Soviet Union. As I said earlier, this is somewhere one family per fairly large village.

The word "fist" is well known to the Russian-speaking population. It seems that everything is very clear with him. But it turns out that there is a similar word in other languages, not at all Slavic. So, a resident of Turkey, having heard it from a foreigner, will nod as a sign that he understands what is at stake. But for some reason it touches the ear. But even a few decades ago, this term would have evoked ambivalent feelings among the Slavs. Apparently, not everything is so simple here.

This article discusses the evolution of the meanings of the word "fist", and also traces its genealogy.

What is a fist

The fist is a bent pastern. With this meaning, the word is mentioned in a written monument of the XIII century (Patriarchal or the Word "pasto" in those days was used to refer to the hand. In addition to this interpretation, "fist" can also mean the following concepts:

Concentrated troops for a decisive blow.
A part of a machine that drives a particular mechanism. So, the steering knuckle of a car is a mandatory part vehicle, thanks to which the wheels can turn, changing the trajectory of movement.
A peasant-owner who has dishonestly acquired property.
A person characterized by stinginess and greed.

And now about everything in order.

Where did the word come from

There are people (they are called etymologists) who devote their time to searching for the origins from which different words. Like experienced detectives, they cling to the slightest evidence: they find matches in morphemes in different languages Look at the sound composition of the word. Thanks to their work, you can find out the genealogy of many Russian terms.

However, different etymologists do not always agree on the origin of the same word. They can argue among themselves for a long time, but this only helps to get even closer to the truth. This happened in the case of the term considered in the article.

The history of the origin of the word "fist" is very confusing and ambiguous. This opinion is shared by many linguists, in particular Max Vasmer and Pavel Chernykh. Therefore, one can only speak about the origin of this word presumably, specifying that there are many different versions. The following article discusses some of them.

Version #1

Alexey Sobolevsky - the author of numerous works on linguistics, considers the word "fist" to be ancient Russianism. He notices that in Old Russian there was no such word, but instead of it, “pasto” was used. And only over time, the bent metacarpus began to be called a fist. Sobolevsky believes that it is quite possible that this word is related to the Old Russian "kul" (an old unit of measurement) - a bag (pouch). Most likely, the “fist” in those days meant about the same as the current “bag”, “wrapper”. If so, this is the meaning embedded in modern word"fist" in the meaning of "peasant merchant", "buyer".

Version #2

It is possible that the word "fist" came from the Turkic languages. In them kulak has the same meaning as in Russian. However, in Turkish the same word is translated as "ear". Nevertheless, many linguists adhere to this etymology.

Version #3

Pavel Chernykh considers Turkic borrowing implausible. He explains that the word "fist" is very ancient, perhaps it existed even at a time when writing was not developed. Chernykh suggests that the Old Russian "fist" could be derived from a lost even more ancient word.

Version #4

Finally, Nikolai Shansky raises the “fist” to the common Slavic kuliti (“to squeeze into a ball”). He considers “fig” (a gesture of mockery, contempt) to be related to this word.

Is everything so simple?

Contrary to the fact that for many people it seems simple and unsophisticated to define the word "fist", for linguists it is significant difficulty. Why?

A person who is not related to philology or anatomy is likely to say that the fist is a part of the body. Then it is worth clarifying that only certain parts of the body are called parts of the body: an arm, a leg, a neck ... But is the heart, for example, like that? “The heart is an organ,” the physiologist will answer. Indeed, "the heart and other parts of the body" sounds strange. This is because the object's visibility parameter plays an important role here. Externally invisible organs are rarely referred to as parts of the body.

Fist: part of the body or its shape?

It seems that now everything is clear, but linguists still doubt. “Parts of the body,” they say, “should not only be visible, but also preserved, regardless of the person’s posture, facial expressions, and gestures.” Well, there is logic in this. Elbow, hand and wrist are always present in a person. It does not matter whether a person rides a bicycle, sits quietly in a chair or actively gesticulates. So it's a part of the body. But one can say about a fist only if a person takes a certain pose (in the case of outstretched fingers, there is no fist).

The smile behaves in much the same way. The lips are part of the body, they are always present. But the smile comes and goes. It all depends on the position of the lips, and they can be both angrily compressed and surprisingly rounded. Similarly, a person can both clench his fist and relax his hands. We can say that the smile and fists were obtained as a result of a change in the shape of body parts: such transformations.

What is the fist capable of?

We could stop there, but there is something else that philologists suggest paying attention to. They claim that the fist is not an ordinary transformation, although there is every reason to believe this. It's all about the functions that he imposes on himself, and they are more characteristic of the parts of the body than their forms.

Firstly, like all transforms, a fist can express certain human emotions, thoughts, transmit information to the addressee. Showing a fist is a rather expressive gesture, by which you can immediately guess the intentions of a person. But this further suggests that the fist is not part of the body. After all, it is difficult to convey emotions by showing the foot or hand to the interlocutor.

However, the second function of the fist is rarely characteristic of transforms. Usually people associate wrestling with the word "fist". This is because it has its own power function. Most often, a person clenched his fist in order to render physical impact for anything. That is, the subject of discussion acts as a power tool that a person can use if necessary. It is worth noting that such actions are not always associated with aggressive intent. You can knock on the door with your fist without any malicious intent, or knead the dough for a pie.

Thus, the most accurate conclusion will be: the fist has intermediate properties between body parts and transforms.

Fist as storage

Phraseologism "to take the will into a fist" is associated with another function of the fist, which was not considered in the article. “This is the function of a receptacle and storage of small objects,” says Alexander Letuchy in his work on linguistic studies. Everything is clear here: in the fist, the child can hold the candy, hiding it from the stern look of the mother. Or, let's say a woman rides a tram to work. It is very convenient to hold coins in a fist so as not to drop them before the controller appears.

From this point of view, the phraseological unit under consideration can be interpreted as follows: “A person collects his physical, mental and spiritual forces, placing them in a certain closed space (fist) so that they cannot escape him.”

On the other hand, the phraseologism “to take the will into a fist” is the unification of all forces into one monolithic whole, into one body, which is the fist.

Fist fight

The first mention of fisticuffs in Rus' can be found in The Tale of Bygone Years. Although the word "fist" was not used there, in this article it is worth paying attention to this old Russian tradition.

Fisticuffs have their roots in pre-Christian times. In this way, people entertained themselves, and also practiced the self-defense skills necessary for that era.

Men united in teams and fought "wall to wall". A rather popular type was the “one-on-one” wrestling, that is, “one on one”, as well as the “clutch-dump”, where everyone fought against everyone, for himself.

Kulikovo field

Interestingly, the name comes from the word "fist". It's easy to see why. It was here that fisticuffs were held, controversial issues were clarified, the resolution of which seemed impossible by peaceful means. So they called this area "Kulikovo", that is, "fists".

Let's agree on terms

Physicists, biologists and other people, one way or another connected with science, before starting a dialogue about a complex phenomenon, say: "Let's agree on terms." For what? The fact is that the same word can have completely different meanings. Because of this, misunderstandings occur, disputes arise. In order for the conversation to be constructive, it is better to speak the same language, that is, to clearly understand what the terms used mean.

Words are homonyms

As already mentioned, a fist is a brush with pressed fingers, a peasant merchant, and a person distinguished by unenviable qualities. Technology lovers can add their value. After all, there is also a wheel-turning car. However, this word is not just an ambiguous term.

Sometimes different concepts are combined under the same sound and spelling, although they do not have any semantic connections. Such words are called homonyms. "Fist" in the meaning of a bent arm, and "fist" in the meaning of a merchant are also homonyms.

This is easy to check by looking at the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. There these words go in different articles.

Fist Merchant

The very concept of "fist", when it comes to people, arose even before the reform. Fists were then called merchants who resorted to all sorts of tricks to increase their profits. In addition, the kulaks were often involved in mediation between production and sales: buying at a low price, they sold at exorbitant prices. It happened that the kulak played the role of a modern lender, lending a piece of land, grain for sowing, animals for work in the field. After that, the peasant, who decided to use the services of such a person, was obliged to return everything with large percentages or to work out.

This practice, on the one hand, helped the poor peasants to survive, gave them a chance to develop their economy. On the other hand, the harsh conditions of the “deals” did not allow the villagers to get on their feet, and ruined the poor even more.

Calling a person a "fist", the peasant, first of all, had in mind his moral content. This nickname arose from the fact that such entrepreneurs influenced people, causing dependence in the villagers, thereby "keeping them in their fist".

It should be noted that prosperous peasants are not always kulaks. In the minds of contemporaries of that time, there was a clear division between honest earnings, which was considered any physical work that benefits themselves and society, and deceit, which some residents resorted to, exploiting the labor of their fellow villagers.

Fists as one of the classes of society

The interpretation of the word "fist" in the meaning of the moral character of a person was preserved until the 1920s of the XX century. After that, the attitude towards the word changed. If earlier this term had figurative meaning and pointed to the moral qualities of a person or his fraudulent methods, now the word “fist” has been assigned the specific meaning of one of the classes of society.

Wealthy peasants are a threat to the whole society. This opinion was widespread among people who fought against the kulaks.

Usage examples

For a better understanding, the article contains sentences with the word "fist" in different meanings.

The boy resolutely clenched his fists and rushed into battle: the bully offended the girl he knew.
The fist of this guy was weighty - with such a person it was necessary either to be friends or to bypass.
Vasily in the village was called a fist, because he liked to fraudulently appropriate other people's funds.
The fists were treated harshly, finding in them a threat to the whole world.
My father believed that the fist was an excellent method of education, but he never used it.
Gathering his will into a fist, the tired tourist got up and followed the departing group.

Even in the most ordinary conversation, you need to be careful about ambiguous words. Using any concept, it is necessary, if necessary, to clarify what kind of meaning is invested in it.

Considering the word "fist" in the meanings inherent modern language and culture of past centuries, you can safely use it in a variety of contexts. This will give not only expressiveness of speech, but also provide an opportunity for a better understanding of the interlocutor during the dialogue.

The article is extremely useful from the point of view of understanding why fists in the field often began to designate the wrong person, and why everything turned out that way.

G.F. Dobronozhenko

The denial of the existence of the kulaks in the countryside in the 1920s was widespread among local leaders, which was often associated with their interpretation of the term "kulak". Local leaders, considering only the usurer and merchant to be a kulak, “looked in the village for a world-eating kulak, a usurer, and did not find it in this form”, “the old, obvious kulak as the peasantry knew it was not found”66 ..
There was also a directly opposite interpretation: “a merchant who does not have agriculture (who does not exploit hired labor in agricultural operations, etc.) is not a kulak, but simply a merchant, or simply a speculator, marauder, usurer, or anything else”67.
The term "kulak" as a synonym for "rural bourgeoisie" was used in the mid-20s. mainly Marxist agrarians of the left direction. One can get an idea of their views from Yu. Larin's interpretation of the concept of "kulak": "the kulak economy is integral, complex in terms of the composition of sources of income, but unified in the exploitative essence of its parts"68. Yu. Larin distinguishes four types of fists. The first type is "a production kulak who, with the help of hired workers, runs a production economy on a scale exceeding the full use of the labor forces of the peasant families themselves," with an entrepreneurial goal, i.e. for the sale on the market of goods created by the labor of others. Yu. Larin considers the second typical species to be "kulaks-buyers" - the most hated variety of the kulaks for the ordinary peasant. "The third type - kulak-merchant" trades in urban goods and purchased or handicrafts. And the fourth type is the kulak-usurer, who rents out a plow, a horse, etc. to a neighbor."69

Marxist agrarians, who interpret the term "kulak" in a broad sense as the rural bourgeoisie, preferred not to use the term "kulak" in their research because it was "not fully scientific." To designate the class of rural exploiters in the 1920s, the terms "small-capitalist farms", "capitalist entrepreneurs", "private capitalist farms", "entrepreneurial group", "farms of the kulak-entrepreneurial type" were used.
Since the 1930s, the scientific literature has exclusively used the term "kulak" to refer to the rural bourgeoisie.
[*] Grant of the Moscow Public Science Foundation (Project No. 99-1996); grant of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation, No. 99-01-003516.
* See for details: G.F. Dobronozhenko. The Class Opponent of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat: the Peasant Bourgeoisie or the Petty-Bourgeois Peasantry (Ideology and Practice of Bolshevism in 1917-1921) // Frontier. Almanac of Social Research. 1997. N 10-11. pp. 144-152.
* Peasant Committees of Public Mutual Assistance.
1 Great October Socialist Revolution. Encyclopedia. 3rd ed., add. M., 1987. S. 262; Brief political dictionary. 2nd ed., add. M., 1980. S. 207; Trapeznikov S.P. Leninism and the agrarian-peasant question: In 2 vols. M., 1967. V.2. "The historical experience of the CPSU in the implementation of the Leninist cooperative plan. S. 174.
2 Smirnov A.P. Our main tasks are to raise and organize the peasant economy. M., 1925. S. 22; Pershin A. Two main sources of stratification of the peasantry // Life of Siberia. 1925. No. 3(31). C. 3.
3 Village under the New Economic Policy. Who was considered a fist, who was a hard worker. What do the peasants say about it? M., 1924. S. 21, 29, 30.
4. Dal V.I. Dictionary living Great Russian language: In 4 vols. M., 1989. T. 2. S. 215.
5 encyclopedic Dictionary Br. A. and I. Garnet and K0. 7th ed. M., 1991. T. 26. S. 165.
6 Sazonov G.P. Usury - kulaks. Observations and research. SPb., 1894. S. 86.
7 Engelhard A.N. Letters from the village. 1872-1887 M., 1987. S. 521 - 522.
8 Garin-Mikhailovsky N.G. Works. M., 1986. S. 17; N. Uspensky. Far and near. Fav. novels and stories. M., 1986. S. 14, 18; Zlotovratsky N.N. Village days. Essays on the peasant community // Letters from the village. Essays on the peasantry in Russia in the second half. nineteenth century M., 1987. S. 279, 355.
9 Sazonov G.P. Decree. op. S. 149.
10 Engelgard A.N. Decree. op. pp. 521,522.
11 Postnikov V.E. South Russian peasantry. M., 1891. S. XVII.
12 Ibid. pp. 114, 117, 144.
13 Postnikov V.E. Decree. op. S. XVII.
14 Gvozdev R. Kulachestvo - usury and its social and economic significance. SPb., 1899. S. 148, 160.
15 Ibid. pp. 147, 154, 157, 158.
16 Lenin V.I. Full coll. cit. T. 3. S. 383.
17 Ibid. T. S. 178 - 179.
18 Ibid. T. 1. S. 507.
19 Ibid. T. 3. S. 179.
20 Ibid. T. 1. S. 110.
21 Ibid. T. 3. S. 178.
22 Ibid. T. 3. S. 169, 178; T. 17. S. 88 - 89, 93.
23 Ibid. T. 3. S. 69, 177; T. 4. S. 55.
24 Ibid. T. 3. S. 69 - 70.
25 Ibid. T. 3. S. 169.
26 Ibid. T. 16. S. 405, 424; T. 17. S. 124, 128, 130, etc.
27 Ibid. T. 34. S. 285.
28 Ibid. T. 35. S. 324, 326, 331.
29 Ibid. T. 36. S. 361 - 363; T. 37. S. 144.
30 Ibid. T. 36. S. 447, 501, 59.
32 Ibid. T. 36, S. 510; T. 37. S. 16, 416.
33 Decrees of the Soviet power. T. II. pp. 262 - 265.
34 Ibid. T. II. pp. 352 - 354.
35 Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 38. S. 146, 196, 200.
36 Ibid. T. 38. S. 236.
37 Ibid. T. 38. S. 256.
38 Ibid. T. 38. S. 14.
39 Directives of the CPSU on economic issues. T. 1. 1917-1928. M. 1957. S. 130-131.
40 Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 41. S. 58.
41 Ibid. T. 37. S. 46.
42 Ibid. T. 31. S. 189-220.
43 Ibid. T. 37. S. 94.
44 Ibid. T. 39. S. 312, 315.
45 of the CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. 8th ed. M., 1970. T. 2. S. 472.
46 Thirteenth Congress of the CPSU(b): Stenogr. report. M., 1963. S. 442-443.

47 of the CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. T. 3. S. 341.

48 Trotsky L. About our tasks. Report at the citywide meeting of the party organization in Zaporozhye. September 1, 1925 M.; L., 1926. S. 4.

49 Antselovich N. The Workers' and Peasants' Union and the Laborers (on the Statement of the Question) // On the Agrarian Front. 1925. No. 5-6. S. 84.

50 SU RSFSR. 1926. No. 75. Art. 889.

51 Directives of the CPSU and the Soviet State on economic issues ... T. 1. S. 458; Lurie G.I. cooperative law. 2nd ed. M., 1930. S. 22-23.

52 Land Code of the RSFSR. M., 1923. S. 118; SU RSFSR. 1922. No. 45. St. 426.

53 SZ USSR. 1925. No. 26. Art. 183; SU RSFSR. 1925. No. 54. Art. 414.

54 SZ USSR. 1927. No. 60. Art. 609.

55 Collection of documents on the land legislation of the USSR and the RSFSR 1917-1954. M., 1954. S. 300-302.

56 SZ USSR. 1929. No. 14. Art. 117.
57 Documents testify: From the history of the village on the eve and during collectivization. 1927-1932 / Ed. V.P. Danilova, N.A. Ivnitsky. M., 1989. S. 211-212.
58 Chayanov A.V. Peasant economy. M., 1989.
59 Khryashcheva A.I. Groups and classes in the peasantry. 2nd ed. M., 1926. S. 109-112; socialist economy. 1924. Book. II. S. 59.; Conditions for the Rise of the Village and the Differentiation of the Peasantry // Bolshevik. 1925. No. 5-6 (21-22). pp. 24-25.
60 Gorokhov V. To the question of the stratification of the peasantry (from the experience of one survey) // Economic construction. Organ of the Moscow Council of the RK and KD. 1925. No. 9-10. P.54.
61 Smirnov A.P. Our main tasks... P. 5,6.
62 Smirnov A.P. The policy of Soviet power in the countryside and the stratification of the peasantry (the kulak, the poor peasant and the middle peasant). M.; L., 1926. S. 33.; He is. On the question of the differentiation of the peasantry. Is it true. 1925. 7 Apr.; He is. On the strong working peasantry. Is it true. Feb. 31, 1925; He is. Once again about the strong working peasantry. Is it true. 1925. 5 April; 1925. 7 Apr.
64 Bogushevsky V. About the village kulak or the role of tradition in terminology // Bolshevik. 1925. No. 9-10. pp. 59-64.
65 Ibid. pp. 62, 63, 64.
66 Soskina A.N. The history of social surveys of the Siberian village in the 20s. Novosibirsk, 1976. S. 184-185.
67 How the village lives: Materials on a sample survey of the Yemetskaya volost. Arkhangelsk. 1925. S. 98.
68 Larin Yu. Agricultural proletariat of the USSR. M., 1927. S. 7.
69 Larin Yu. Soviet village. M., 1925. S. 56.