Who, for what and how the Bolsheviks were dispossessed, or How the rural bourgeoisie was destroyed in the USSR

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

Thanks to the Bolsheviks, the word “kulak” was introduced into wide use, the etymology of which is still not clear. Although the question is controversial, which arose earlier: the "kulak" itself or the word denoting the process of "dispossession"? Be that as it may, criteria had to be defined according to which the business executive became a fist and was subject to dispossession. Who determined it, what signs of the kulaks existed and why did the rural bourgeoisie become an "enemy element"?

Where does the word "fist" come from?

The word even entered Dahl's dictionary, in it the "kulak" is interpreted as a tradesman, a reseller, someone who enriches himself through deception and miscalculation. If we proceed from this explanation, then a good half of those who today are proudly called “businessman” or, more modestly, “entrepreneur” can be called fists. Was this really all the sins of the kulaks, for which they were deprived not only of property, but often of life? In addition, it is often now possible to come across the point of view that the kulak is a strong business executive who knew how and wanted to work. Who, after all, was called a fist?

There are several versions. And the most popular one for today is just the one about a strong business executive who works himself and won't let others down - keeps them in his fist. Say, hence the designation. But it is unlikely that such a positive word would have been possible for the Bolsheviks to remake in their own way, diametrically changing their attitude towards it. Although, when it comes to propaganda and shuffling of facts, the Bolsheviks simply had no equal.

At the beginning of the 20th century, there was a different version. Fists were called usurers who gave money at interest (also, by modern standards, just a terrible sin). However, in the case of the kulak, the situation was somewhat different. A kulak, for example, could lend grain, but with interest. That is, in fact, without working in the field, he received a harvest, while the peasant was forced to work hard, and then also give away part of his harvest. At the same time, all the risks associated with agriculture fell on the shoulders of the peasant. It doesn't matter that the year turned out to be a bad harvest, the debt with interest must be repaid. No wonder that often a debt was formed, which there was nothing to repay, but had to.

This practice was illegal as it fell under the usury clause, which was prohibited. It is clear that situations often arose when the peasant simply had nothing to repay the debt with. Given the illegal activities of the kulak himself, he could not go to court to return the debt. It was then, apparently, that the very relations arose, thanks to which the "kulak" began to be called the "kulak". It was the physical knocking out of money or debt in another expression that became the basis of this definition.

However, this was not enough for dispossession. There were two main criteria by which it was determined whether the peasant was a kulak or was he just a firmly standing business executive? Firstly, this is usury, and secondly, the use of hired labor. The second aspect is very far-fetched, because if a person has a large household, then by definition he uses hired labor. However, it was banned in the country, apparently as a sign of "lordly manners" and was illegal.

When they wanted the best, but it turned out as always

Before collectivization, part of the land belonged to landowners, part to peasants, and part to kulaks. If the peasant land was common and was cultivated collectively, proceeding from the principles of the community, then the landlord and kulak land were individual. The peasants did not have enough land, often because of this, the hayfields were converted into arable land.

The peasant part of the land was considered common - worldly, it was constantly divided, altered and again divided, the kulak claiming worldly lands was often called the world eater - living at the expense of the community. Although a one-sided assessment of what is happening, of course, there is a place to be. After all, for their part, the kulaks gave grain and money, albeit at interest, but demanded their own, albeit according to the agreement, more than they took. Probably, the name of the class did not come from somewhere, but because of the methods used in this case.

Buying up everything that lies badly, the kulaks became very wealthy people. They could buy part of the land from the ruined landowner, part of it they took from the peasants for debts. Often there were cases when peasants, who did not want to repay their debt, could inadvertently drown their kulaks in a pond, getting rid at the same time and together with the need to repay debts. Until the next sowing season, the peasants could breathe freely, but there would be no way to get money for a new sowing season. Therefore, in these relations, which were originally supposed to be mutually beneficial, the peasantry constantly violated the agreement and presented itself as the oppressed and offended side. Often the kulak had his assistants who visited the debtors, most often these strong guys were recruited from among the peasants themselves.

Perhaps the main thing that characterized the kulak was the very ability to take what was owed, in fact, this was exactly what the peasants did not like so much and this also allowed him to stand firmly on his feet. From the point of view of the development of the national economy, the kulaks as a class were very justified. In order for agriculture to become commodity, mechanized, it was necessary to enlarge it, which was what the kulaks did, developing their economy, increasing capital and increasing the amount of their land. The peasantry has always been and remained of little commodity and did not have a surplus, despite the fact that it was employed all year round on its own or landlord's economy.

No matter how the peasant tried to get rich on his very limited lands thanks to honest labor, he would not have succeeded. The fact that someone managed to live better, and not like everyone else through a rational approach, cunning and grasping character, could not but irritate.

The land decree of the Bolsheviks was supposed to solve the problem of the lack of land for the peasantry, at that time a quarter of the land belonged to the landowners, it was taken away and annexed to the common lands, dividing by families, based on the number of family members. Thus, the Bolsheviks seem to have fulfilled their promise about "land to the peasants", only no one began to live richer and more satisfying from this.

The kulaks continued their activity and very soon the land began to belong not to the landowners, but to the kulaks, the peasants were again left with nothing. At the same time, there was also a ban on hired labor in the country, the kulaks violated this point and, whatever one may say, they were illegal elements.

Who was dispossessed and how

The idea of taking it away from those who have it, under the pretext that they made it by dishonest labor, came to the minds of the Bolsheviks almost immediately. The collectivization of agriculture was in full swing already in 1918, 11 thousand state and collective farms were created, but even then it was clear that it was not enough to select livestock and collect in one place, it needed competent supervision, specialists, workers. Already at the very beginning of such associations, the collective farms were in a deplorable state, moreover, the majority had no time for agriculture when such changes were taking place in the country.

Basically, the fate of the kulaks was similar. Some were first arrested, then sent to a camp, and already there they were shot, others were sent to hard labor, and still others were shot there, leading them out of their native village.

Not only the Red Army men, but also the employees of the OGPU joined in the dispossession of kulaks. The flywheel spun - special operational groups were created, reserves of the Chekists were created. Lists of kulaks, and therefore of those who were subject to dispossession, were created locally; not only local authorities, but also the population itself, took part in their creation, organizing gatherings and approving lists on them collectively. At any congresses, slogans and appeals were heard, which, however, did not carry any legality. The only justification for what was happening was the revolution, but there were no people willing to object to such calls, few people wanted to be known as a counter-revolutionary.

Quite often people who have never had their own opinion or have not enjoyed the respect of the villagers are among the activists. Drunkards, idlers, who could only shout, often became the leaders of such a movement on the ground, doing arbitrariness according to their own worldview. Cooperatives, which included kulaks, were recognized as false, therefore not only kulak elements were not allowed into the collective farms, but periodically purges of possible intruders were carried out.

The fight against the kulaks was very serious, given the fact that they were serious people, with certain views on life, with a strong-willed character, accustomed to getting their way and having authority in the village, it was simply impossible to get rid of them. In addition, their assistants often created their own detachments that fought their way.

However, among the kulaks, several categories can also be distinguished, regarding their behavior after the beginning of dispossession. Some created a real counter-revolutionary asset and were not going to surrender without a fight. They were armed, did not disdain murder, roused the villagers to uprisings and were active against the Soviet regime.

Another category, which consisted of kulaks, who practically became landowners due to large-scale farming and high incomes, did not participate in counter-revolutionary activities, but at the same time they nightmares the peasants, knocked out debts, and raised the prices of bread and grain. There were those kulaks, mostly small ones, who accepted what was happening as inevitable and did not try to resist.

One of the indirect signs that a person uses hired labor, which means that it is a fist, were horses, or rather their number. If there were several of them, then this was considered a sure sign. The horse at that time was a transport, it was used to cultivate the land. Not a single peasant working alone will keep an extra horse, because it also needs to be fed. One horse is enough for one farm. If there are several of them, it means that the owner has hired workers - once, extra land that he does not have time to cultivate on his own - yes. These were ranked in the third category of kulaks.

What was meant by dispossession

Different degrees of punishment were applied to different categories of kulaks. Those who were active in counter-revolutionary activities and were involved in the murders of representatives of the Soviet government were shot. Otherwise, the counter-revolutionaries were expelled along with their families to the Urals or to Kazakhstan. The kulaks, from among the rich, but who did not offer resistance to the authorities, were expelled alone, without families.

The third most innocuous category was expelled together with the family, but within the same county. That is, they changed their place of residence, leaving their native village. This was done in order to break the link between the kulak and his assistants, to deprive him of his authority and strength. Indeed, in a new place, he found himself in a vulnerable position.

In total, 1.8 million people were dispossessed - this is if you count together with family members, kulaks - the heads of families were 400-500 people. During this period, there were about 500 thousand settlements in the country, that is, roughly speaking, one kulak per settlement. There is no talk of any mass executions and executions. Sometimes counter-revolutionaries could be exiled along with their assistants for serious offenses.

It is generally accepted that some were exiled completely without fault, on the basis of denunciation and "snitching" from fellow villagers, out of envy and human malice. It is quite possible that there were such cases, but this required the formal presence of kulak signs. At least in the form of the same extra horses.

The results of dispossession

The kulaks who were exiled were reinstated in 1934, but this did not give them the right to leave the place of exile, while their children received freedom of movement in 1938 and could go home or support the industrialization process.

Any violent process, interference with the foundations leads to unexpected consequences. Collectivization, as a violent process, not only broke the age-old foundations of the peasantry, but also interfered with the natural course of history and the development of agriculture and commodity-market relations. One can endlessly argue about whether there would be an "if", but they say that history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood, therefore, based on facts.

Without collectivization, there would be no successful industrialization, which played a huge role during the Second World War. A Russia based on grain and arable land would have much less chances of overcoming fascism. During the war, the kulaks massively went over to the side of the enemy, if their number was larger, such a phenomenon could become widespread.

However, there are also unconditional disadvantages. The first and foremost sign that a terrible mistake had been made was the massive famine that claimed the lives of more than 3 million people throughout the country. Around the same years, more than 500 thousand members of the kulak families were killed, mostly children. As for the economic benefits of collectivization, then the result was the opposite. Only by the 60s was it possible to reach the same per capita indicators that were in 1920. The decline in the efficiency of agriculture led to a decrease in the level of supply, which was immediately felt by the city dwellers. This led to the introduction of the rationing system and a significant deterioration in nutrition.

However, perhaps the most important negative consequence was the birth of the principle “common is no one”, which for a long period will determine the work of the collective and state farms system. The peasants, who worked with love and desire on their land, were able to sensitively understand and feel natural phenomena and received a good harvest, did not at all strive to work on the collective farm, abandoned their homes, families and left for the cities. The age-old connection with the land, with roots and traditions was lost.