Botonoev J. S.
Osh State University scholar
Mobile: (+996) 0551 02 53 02
В данной статье излагаются некоторые новые взгляды на последствия процесса «раскулачивания» политики коллективизации Советской Власти в 20-40 гг. ХХ столетия.
In the given article describes some new view points concerning the consequences of the ‘dispossession of kulaks’ of the Soviet rule collectivization policy in the 20s – 40s of the XX century.
The matter being considered is one of the actual questions that haven’t been valued objectively in Historical Sciences yet, the matter had been considered in the party ideology framework before or during the Soviet Union and the historian couldn’t reveal the real historical event. It’s because party political system had authoritarian-bureaucratic character. Only when the USSR collapsed and Kyrgyzstan became independent this matter and many other similar issues of political, cultural and social-economic and other issues, and even there can be found some historian-scientists, researchers who criticized Soviet rule policy subjectively. Now it’s time to clarify such issues. Therefore, if presently it’s actual to reconsider the issue on the basis of the new scientific searches and assess objectively and with new view point, the main goal of the issue is to analyze the research level of the issue and to reveal objectively having new scientific searches and new approaches to the problems to show the advantages and disadvantages of the dispossession of kulaks and eradication of the kulak farms as a class; the problems of the private farms inclusion to the collective farms; and processes and specifications of the collectivization policy of the Soviet Rule policy in 20s- 40s of XX century. It is obvious that in 1990, after the collapse of the former USSR, similar to the other republics, since independence the given issues have been researched in the lowest level by the historian-scientists Kyrgyzstan. I went through the following works by the historian-scientists who researched before about the given issue: “The Kyrgyz assembly to fight for the establishment of Socialism (1922 -1932)” by U.A. Asanbaev, “From the history of the building of Kyrgyz settlements in the social farming way”, “ Social reform of Kyrgyz village (1928 -1940)” by J.S. Baktygulov, “From the nomadic life to socialism 1917-1937” by B. Baibulatov, “Lenin’s way of cooperating of the farms is the way of the Kyrgyz village reform”, “Essay on the history of the of the collectivization in Kirgizia” by T. D Duishomaliev, “ The prolems of the collectivization of the agriculture in USSR in the newer soviet historiography” by I. E. Zelemin, “History of the Soviet farming of Kyrgyzstan” by S. I. Ilayasov, “Co-operative-collective formation in Kyrgyzstan (1918-1929)” by S. I. Ilayasov, “History of the Soviet farming of Kyrgyzstan” under the edition by S. I. Ilayasov V.P. Sherstobitov, “History of the collectivization of agriculture in Kyrgyzstan (1929-1934). Documents and materials” compiled by T.A. Abdykarov, A.A. Dzhamankaraeva, N. A. Mylnikova, A. M. Pushkareva and E. A. Romanov, “Sovhozs of Kyrgyzstan during the formation of the socialism (1917 -1937)” by D.N. Nermatov, “The pages of the history of the Soviet society. People, problems, facts” under the general edition of A.T. Kinkulkina, “To the history of the foundation and the development of collective property in Kyrgyz village in the years of the 1st and the 2nd “piteletka” (1928 -1932)” by J.S. Baktygulov, “Class fights in Kyrgyz villages (1918-1932)” by B. Chokushev, “The New Economic Policy in Kyrgyzstan (1921-1925) ” V.P. Sherstobitov, “To the history of the collectivization of the Kyrgyz nomadic farms” by J.S. Baktygulov, “From the History of the socialist reforms in the village in early years soviet rule (1917-1920)” by J.S. Baktygulov and S.G. Koshenko. (1)
In most of the above mentioned historian-scientists works they used the Marxist and Leninist theory to the policy of collectivization, generally, in the territory of the USSR and in Kyrgyzstan and assessed in the frame of the soviet party ideology with class view point. And the following historian-scientists tried to assess with class view point and non class view point: f. eg. the works “Collectivization on USSR: facts, ideology, results” by V.A. Gvozdetcki, “Who is kulak : the meaning of the concept of “kulak” by G. F. Dobronozhenko, “Collectivization and the dispossession of kulak” by N.A Invitski, “Collective Russia: tragic start” by T.E. Kuznetsov. (2)
The soviet rule mass collectivization policy was considered by scientists in two view point: class and non-class. Among the Kyrgyz historian mentioned above J.S. Baktygulov in his scientific article: “The collectivization of Kyrgyz village: new view point” tried to reveal some mistakes by Soviet Rule in the years of the collectivization. And Uzbek historian R. Shamsutdinov revealed the negative sides of the policy processed in theyers of the mass collectivization of Soviet Rule in his 3 volume work of “Tragedy of the Centaral Asian village: Collectivization, dispossession of kulak, exile (1929-1955)” Documents and materials”, published in Tashkent in 2006.(3)
Besides on the pages of the published newspapers of that time: “Batrak” (1928-1929), “Kustar I Artel” (1929-1933), “Krasnaya zvezda” (1928-1938), “Krestyanskaya gazeta” (1928), “Krestyanski put” (1925 -1927), “Postroika” (1927), “Pravda Vostoka” (1932), “Professionalnoe dvizhenie rabochei kooperacii” (1920), “Rynok truda Srednei Asii” 1929-1930, “Sovetskaya Kirgizia” (1929), “Hlebny bulleten (1931-1932)”, “Communist of Kyrgyzstan (03.03.1990). (4) and other interesting information were given, and in Internet websites in the works of the following authors they tried to show the foreseen problem objectively: Gafur Haidarov “Truth about the lie” (R. Shamsutdinov – Tragedy of the Central Asian village collectivization , disposition of kulaks, exile) (review), “Dispossession of kulaks is the usury and its public –economic meaning” by R. Gvozdev, “The full collection of essays” V 3 6, 37, 38 41 by Lenin, “To the question of liquidation of kulaks as class” by I.V. Stalin, “Our main tasks of organizing and raising the rural farms” by A.P. Smirnov, “Two main sources of stratification of the peasantry”, “The thirteenth congress of VKP (Kommunist Party) (b): shorthand report” by A. Pershin, “Self-identification of the farming at crucial stage of the history” by V.F. Churkin”, “Letters from the village 1872-1887” (5) by A.N. Engelhard. And during the in the years of independence there were written such dissertations concerning this problem in the neighboring countries as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan: f.eg. in 2007 Z. Zh. Mardanova wrote a scientific dissertation on the topic: “Public policy of forced resettlements in Kazakhstan during 20s and 30s of the XX c., in 2008 “N.K. Kattabekova wrote “Agrarian reforms and repression against the farming in the South Kazakhstan (1927 -1937)”, and “State Policy on transferring the Kazakh “sharua” to settle in 20s and 30s” of the XX c.” written by S.K. Mahmutov (6). And in 2005 in Andijan town of Uzbek Republic there was published the dissertation by Alisher Mamajanov: “Exiled to the North Caucasus from villages of Uzbekistan in the process of collectivization” (7)
In the above mentioned scientific research works they also tried to show the positive and negative sides of the Soviet Period and the current Central Asian countries policy of mass collectivization. However, in some places they worked subjectively and called the policy of the soviet period collectivization as a “Tragedy”. In reality in my point of view the term is not giving the certain point to history but it can be destroying the history. Scientific research works on the same themes were written from different points of view during the Soviet period. For example in 1984 N. Bababev wrote “Sovhoz construction in Turkmen SSR (1928 -1937 ) in Ashgabat city, in 1987 HS Baikabulov wrote “Sovkozes of Uzbekistan during socialism construction (1928-1937)” in Tashkent city, in 1983 A.Ju. Ziyamuhamedov wrote “The historic role of socialism in Uzbekistan” (1924-1932), in 1985 Z.PH Nizamova wrote “Development of agricultural cooperation in Tajik ASSR (1924-1929) ” in the city of Dushanbe, in 1989 Ju. V Podkuiko wrote “The class organization of rural farms in the struggle for the social reform” (1918 1930) in 1982 E.L. Vilensky about the “Liquidation of unemployment and agrarian overpopulation in Central Asia and in Kazakhstan (1917 -1932)” (8). As mentioned above these scientific research works were written on the basis of the Party ideology from the class point of view, but they could not show objectively the real historic process of that time. The Soviet collectivization policy wasn’t only in Kyrgyzstan, but in other places where they practiced the policy that based on the Stalin concept and worked in the authoritarian system, out of the law; the consequences of which affected the socio-economic, cultural, moral and many other fields. So here it’s not correct to remark the Soviet Rule above mentioned policy as “tragedy” or “modernization”. It is because there were progressive and negative sides of the Soviet policy of mass collectivization not only in Kyrgyzstan but also in other places, too. As examples of the negative sides we can refer the following facts: by class view on June 29, 1931 the Central Committee bureau in Central Asia issued the instruction of “the dispossession of the kulak farmers who were the main enemies who fought against collective farms and sovhozs” during the collectivization period, and the clearance of the “kulak” farms that decreased the process of building the socialist system. In result in 1931 from August to September 6 thousand Kulak members were moved from Central Asia to Ukraine and the Caucasus among them there were more than 700 bais or the rich and kulak farms from Kyrgyzstan. And by the decision, from December 3, 1932 of VCP (b), of the Kyrgyz Oblast Committee on “The clear out the collective farms from the riches and kulak farms” had a great importance in dispossession of kulaks. As an example, we can consider the Tax information in 1928 and in 1929 that describes of only 3406 kulak farms (1,8 % of the total number of the peasants farms.) in Kyrgyzstan. This means that to those years Kyrgyzstan almost didn’t have kulak farms. All in all it is equal 3,6 % of the capitalistic share. According to the instruction documents 3-5% of the whole peasant farms of the republic were dispossessed as kulaks (9). It is clear that to implement the task the local authorities of the government changed the facts as they wanted or even over implemented the tasks by “searching and finding” a certain number of kulaks they needed. In result most of the average farms were dispossessed as kulaks. This informs that the authorities realized the unjust policy at that time. Besides, for example, in 1930 and in 1931 they exiled 6944 families or exactly 33 278 people from Central Asia to the North Caucasus and Ukraine; and on June in 1933 such process exiled 500 families or more than 2000 people to the North of Caucasus.(10)
If to conclude the collectivization policy of the Soviet Rule changed the local people’ agricultural share which existed since the old times, they change their way of life in a short time; or exactly they transformed the nomadic way of life of people to the settled way by force promising them the life with equal rights and with equal social status; as mentioned above, they exiled the political and social elite of local community by force confiscating their properties and resettling them to other countries.
Though the policy based on the Stalin concept had progressive sides the policy was not accepted well by the local people because the representatives of the local authorities didn’t realize the Stalin program appropriately among communities. It’s important to remark that such unjust policy implementation can not be linked with the activities of Stalin only. In short the topic needs to be researched and with new approaches and to be assessed with new points.
1. (1) J. S. Botonoev, T. D. Kadyrov “Is the policy of “dispossession of kulak” during the years of collectivization tragedy or modernization? : New view point” – Vestnik OshGU, Osh city , 2009
2. (2) J.S. Botonoev , T.D. Kadyrov “Is the policy of “dispossession of kulak” during the years of collectivization tragedy or modernization? : New view point” – Vestnik OshGU, Osh city , 2009
3. (3) R. Shamsutdinov. Tragedy of the Central Asian village: the collectivization, dispossession of the kulak, exile. 1929-1955 Documents and the materials T 2 – Tashkent, 2006;
4. (4) J.S. Botonoev The dispossession of the kulak policy in the years of Soviet collectivization: New view point” – Vestnik OshGU, Osh city , 2009
5. (5) httpwww.google.ru Engelhard A.N. Letters from the village. 1872-1887 6. (6) S.K. Mahmutov. “Public policy on the transformation of the Kazakh sharua to settle (20s-30s of the XXc.)” – Almaty city, 2008 7. (7) A. Mamajanov. “Exiled from the villages of Uzbekistan to the North Caucasus in the process of the collectivization” – Andijan, 2005 8. (8) J.S. Botonoev The dispossession of the kulak policy in the years of Soviet collectivization: New view point” – Vestnik OshGU, Osh city , 2009 9. (9) Kyrgyz History – Encyclopedia – Bishkek, 2003 10. (10) R. Shamsutdinov. Tragedy of the Central Asian village: the collectivization, dispossession of the kulak, exile. 1929-1955, Documents and materials T-2 ,Tashkent, 2006