A terrible incident happened in the 60s. A terrible incident in the village (5 photos)

It happened in one of the villages of the Leningrad region in the 60s. A mother-in-law lived with a peasant there, so he and his wife went to visit her. It was summer, the month of August, and he wanted to take a walk in the forest, breathe the air, pick mushrooms, and let the dog run. Well, I went, I wasn’t going to go far, but it turned out differently. There was a hunting dog, she started chasing someone there, squirrels or something ... Well, she barks and barks. Well, the man went to the sound until he found out what it was, while he gave the necessary commands to the dog, well, he lost his landmark in a strange forest. Went to look for the way, began to stray. I wandered through the forest for a long time and came out to some clearing with ancient dilapidated log sheds. He climbed, looks, one is more or less in good condition, as if someone lives in it. I began to look further, found several dugouts, and everything showed that these buildings had been there since the war. The man realized that this was a military partisan camp, where they hid from the Germans. The places there are really deaf, the nearest village is far away, well, you see, that's how it was. It just looks like the place is inhabited. Maybe the hunters stop? And then something unpleasant happened. In one of the dugouts, he found someone's bones. They were human remains, practically a skeleton in tatters. He was lying on a mat and it was almost impossible to determine whether he was a man or a woman. It can be seen that it has been lying for a very long time, there is practically no meat left there. Well, what to do? Close the dugout and leave? It's not human. And he decided to bury this man. There was nothing to dig a deep grave with, he just somehow dragged these bones into the forest, there were a lot of craters from shells, put the skeleton in one of the pits and somehow buried it or threw it with something. From above I made an impromptu cross, well, I remembered a little, fortunately, I had something with me. Soon it began to get dark in the forest, things were getting closer to night, there was no choice. That man decided to spend the night in one of the dugouts, everything is better than under the open sky. He broke the spruce branches, built himself an impromptu bed and went to bed. Only sleep did not come, either from thoughts, or from some special excitement. And so he lay, listening to the darkness for a long time. After some time, a rustle seemed to him, and around it was such a dark place, nothing was visible. And suddenly a woman's voice was heard to him: - Thank you, Vitya, for burying me properly. I have been waiting for you for a long time, you were supposed to come two years ago. Why didn't you come? You did good to me, for this I will help you. Wait for a son, he will be a good boy. And tell your wife not to go to the doctors anymore, they won't help. I will help .... To say that the man was frightened is to say nothing. He was just horrified. He didn’t understand a damn thing who was talking to him now, and even called him by name. There was no time for sleep. He hid in the corner of this very dugout, and sat there until dawn. Well, then I went to look for the way home. From the camp into the forest, the path barely noticeable left, apparently, they used it at one time. The man might not have noticed her, but intuition suggested that it was in that direction that it was necessary to go. Well, he went there, there was nothing to choose from, he still did not know the road. He walked for a long time and came to some clearing. It was all overgrown, it was difficult to walk, but he somehow got his bearings in the sun and decided that he would come out somewhere. After a while, he realized that this road, you see, once was, maybe during the war, only now it has not been used for a long time. In short, he wandered like this again almost until the evening, he was exhausted all over, but still he came out of the forest. Fortunately, it was the same mother-in-law village. He came home, received a scolding from his wife, she had already changed her mind there and was going to raise people to go in search. Well, then the peasant began to torture his mother-in-law, told her about his lodging for the night in the forest, about the remains buried by him, described the place and told about the voice that he had heard in the night. And the mother-in-law, let's groan and gasp, be baptized, and run for a neighbor. She understood who the son-in-law was talking about. She came with some ancient old woman and they told him a story ... Even before the war, an aunt lived in their village alone, she was good, kind, she treated everyone with herbs. During the war, there were many partisans in their forest, so she disappeared all of them in the camp, treated the sick and wounded, and saved many lives. They loved her very much, and she was indispensable for any occasion. And after the war, many strangers came to the village, a medical assistant's station was opened, doctors were caught up. But no one went to them, everyone went to this aunt for treatment in the old fashioned way. Well, these doctors harbored a grudge against her, wrote a letter to the right place. You see, it undermines the authority of Soviet doctors and discriminates against them in the eyes of society. Well, they had to pick up this aunt to come. What they wanted to impute to her there, no one knows. Only the local district police officer was a good person, he warned in time, so she first hid in the neighbors, and then suddenly disappeared. Since then, no one knew anything about this herbalist. In the village they thought that she was caught all the same and taken away. True, there were gossips that someone had seen her in the forest, but no one believed these rumors. And the herbalist knew, you see, where the partisans had a camp during the war, she left to live there. Few people knew about this camp, the place is very remote, far away and with a rather bad reputation ... And then everything happened, as the voice promised. The wife of that peasant soon became pregnant, although before that she could not give birth for many years, she kept running around to the doctors, but to no avail. A boy was born, named Vladimir, and this is my close friend. And this story happened to his father, he told it to us. That's it. Do good deeds, because you do not know where luck will smile at you.

When collectivization was carried out in Soviet villages and villages by the 1930s and the way of life of cultivators and pastoralists was forcibly socialized, the state made a workday by evaluating their work by a special resolution of the Council of People's Commissars. This unified measure of accounting for labor and the distribution of income of collective farmers existed until the mid-1960s. Ideally, the workday should have become a share of the collective farm income, which was distributed depending on the degree of labor participation of one or another worker.

The system of workdays, which has been repeatedly reformed throughout the history of its existence, nevertheless remained a rather intricate scheme of material incentives for collective farmers. It most often did not depend on the efficiency of production, but at the same time it allowed for a differentiated distribution of income from the grown crop (or cattle handed over for slaughter) - in proportion to the contribution of a certain worker. For non-working out the norm of workdays in the USSR, criminal liability was provided - the one who was fined was sentenced to corrective work on his own collective farm with a quarter of workdays withheld.

The remuneration for labor was mainly payment in kind (mainly in grain). In the military proud (1941 - 1945), less than half a kilo of grain was issued per workday. In the winter of 1946-1947, a massive famine occurred in the USSR due to crop failure.

Collective farmers from the very beginning of the operation of such a payment system massively protested - they slaughtered livestock, left the villages for the cities. In 1932, a special passport regime was introduced in the USSR, as a result of which the inhabitants of villages and villages actually received the status of serfs, who were forbidden to leave the settlement without the permission of the "master" (the chairman of the collective farm or village council). For the children of peasants in such a case, after leaving school, there was most often one way - to go to work on a collective farm. In films about collective farm life, which are classics of Soviet cinema, there are often scenes in which the chairman decides whether to let graduates of a rural school go to study further in the city or not. The guys who served in the army, knowing what fate awaits them at home in the village, by any means sought to gain a foothold in the cities.

If the serf peasant in Russia before the revolution had the opportunity to receive income from his land allotment and sell the surplus, then the Soviet collective farmer was deprived of this as well - the state imposed exorbitant taxes on the household plot in the countryside or in the countryside, the peasant was forced to pay almost for every apple tree in garden.

Pensions for old people on Soviet collective farms were either not paid at all, or they were meager.

Nikita Khrushchev began his activities with the destruction of agriculture, the Russian village - the basis of the life of Russian civilization for thousands of years. For all the enemies of Russia and the Russian people, this move is an old, proven classic. The Russian village is the basis of the economy, the reproduction of the Russian ethnos, its spiritual health. If a country cannot feed itself, it is forced to buy food, paying for it in gold and its own resources, which are necessary for the development of the country. Food insecurity is very dangerous in the context of the outbreak of world war and can lead to famine.

Khrushchev, considering himself a great specialist in the field of agriculture, launched several destructive projects at once. At the end of the Stalin era and in the first years after his death, agriculture developed successfully. However, the successful rise of agriculture quickly came to an end. Khrushchev suddenly ordered the liquidation of the state machine and tractor stations (MTS).

These state enterprises, on a contractual basis with agricultural collective farms, provided their production and technical services. Most collective farms and state farms did not have enough funds to independently buy complex agricultural machines, tractors and ensure their uninterrupted operation, to train appropriate personnel. In addition, there was not enough technology at the first stages, and there was a need for its concentration and centralized distribution. The concentration of large agricultural machinery in the MTS gave a big economic gain under such conditions. MTS also played a significant role in the general rise in the cultural and technical level of the peasantry. In the Soviet Union, a large stratum of the rural technically literate population appeared - qualified tractor drivers, drivers, combine operators, repairmen, etc. In total, by 1958 there were about 2 million people.

Khrushchev, on the other hand, liquidated the MTS and ordered the collective farms to buy out agricultural equipment - tractors, combines, etc. Moreover, high prices were set. Collective farms had to spend all the savings that remained for 1954-1956 on the purchase of equipment, which worsened their financial situation. Also, collective farms did not have the funds to immediately create an appropriate base for the storage and maintenance of equipment. In addition, they did not have the appropriate technical specialists. Nor could they enlist former MTS employees en masse. The state could allow the workers of the machine and tractor stations to be paid higher wages than the collective farms. Therefore, the majority of workers began to look for more profitable niches and found other uses for themselves. As a result, many machines without proper maintenance quickly turned into scrap metal. Solid losses. It was a strong blow to the economic potential of the Soviet countryside.

In addition, Nikita Khrushchev launched a campaign to enlarge collective farms and state farms. Their number was reduced from 83 thousand to 45 thousand. It was believed that they would unite in powerful "collective farm unions." Khrushchev hoped to realize his old project of creating "agrocities".

As a result, new gigantic, overwhelmingly unmanaged farms were created, which included dozens of villages. The leaders of these "agrocities" began to quickly degenerate into a food and marketing "mafia", which dictated its own rules to the authorities, including prices and volumes of supplies. Thus, the "collective-farm unions" actually won the right to sell "their" products mainly in the city markets at inflated prices. In addition, this project required large capital investments, which the collective farms did not have. Collective farms have already spent the last of their money on the purchase of equipment. As a result, the consolidation campaign failed. By the mid-1980s, more than 60% of the state farms created in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period in the Russian Non-Black Earth region turned out to be unprofitable.

Interestingly, even the pricing policy was directed against the Russian countryside. The state set the minimum purchase prices for agricultural products in the Non-Chernozem region of the RSFSR. This policy was carried out from the end of the 1950s until the end of the USSR. As a result, the national republics of Transcaucasia and Central Asia received an additional channel for stimulation and financial support.

Khrushchev dealt another powerful blow to the village when he began a course to eliminate "unpromising" villages. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, thousands of prosperous Soviet villages were declared unprofitable, "unpromising" and destroyed in a short time for such a fraudulent reason. Out of nowhere, the “specialists” who had come from began to evaluate which villages could be left and which ones were “unpromising”. From above, instructions were sent down to search for "unpromising" villages. This process began in 1958 with the North-Western region of the RSFSR, in accordance with the "closed" decision of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR.

In fact, the current Russian "optimizers" ("optimization" of rural schools, clinics, etc.) repeated the experience of the Khrushchevites. The policy was aimed at the resettlement of residents from small villages to large ones and the concentration in them of the main part of the population, industrial and social facilities. The "reformers" proceeded from the false premise that highly mechanized agriculture must be matched by highly concentrated forms of settlement. It was assumed that in the future each collective farm (state farm) would include 1 or 2 settlements with the number of inhabitants from 1-2 thousand to 5-10 thousand people. Proceeding from this, strong points - promising villages - stood out in the settlement network. They planned to resettle residents from small, so-called unpromising villages, which included up to 80% (!) Of their total number. It was believed that such a change in the settlement structure would not only create opportunities for the faster development of the socio-cultural and household sphere of the village, bringing it closer to urban standards, but also reduce the flow of migrants from the village to the city.

The eviction and liquidation of "unpromising" villages were carried out by order, without taking into account the wishes of the villagers themselves. Once on the “black” list, the village was already doomed, because capital construction was stopped in it, schools, shops, clubs were closed, bus routes were liquidated, etc. Such conditions forced people to leave well-settled places. At the same time, 2/3 of the migrants did not migrate to the settlements designated for them, but to regional centers, cities, and other regions of the country. Residents of "unpromising" villages were resettled, villages and farms were empty throughout the Soviet Union. So, the number of villages in Siberia for 1959-1979. decreased by 2 times (from 31 thousand to 15 thousand). The greatest decline occurred from 1959 to 1970 (35.8%). There was a significant reduction in the number of small villages and the entire settlement network.

I must say that the same policy, but by default, without a centralized drive of people from their homes, was continued in the Russian Federation. No one declared villages, villages and towns “unpromising”, but capital construction stopped, schools began to “enlarge” (“optimize”, in fact, liquidate), reduce clinics, hospitals, bus routes, the movement of commuter trains, electric trains, etc.

Only by the end of the 1970s, the policy of eliminating "unpromising" villages in the USSR was recognized as erroneous, but it was already difficult to stop the downward trend in the number of small villages. The villages continued to die even after the end of this policy. In the Urals, Siberia and the Far East for 1959-1989. the number of villages decreased by 2.2 times (from 72.8 thousand to 32.6 thousand). In most cases, this policy had a negative impact on the entire socio-economic development of the village and the country as a whole. The country has suffered serious demographic damage. The process of concentration has led to a decrease in the level of population of the territories. The thinning of the network of settlements in the eastern regions weakened and disrupted inter-rural ties and had a negative effect on public services. The village lost the function of developing new lands. The village was losing the most active, young people, many of whom left their small homeland forever. There were also moral and moral negative consequences. There was a marginalization of a significant part of the population, people lost their roots, the meaning of life. No wonder then the village people considered the less corrupted vices of urban civilization. The defeated village began to "sink", to become an inveterate drunkard. The morbidity and mortality of the rural population has sharply increased in "unpromising" regions.

There was a sharp social aggravation of relations between the city and the countryside. The policy led to a strong overpopulation of cities, as the settlers preferred to migrate not to certain settlements, but to regional centers and cities. This led to a constant fall in the price of labor, as well as skilled labor in industry and the extractive industries. Of course, this often led to conflicts with the townspeople, not to mention the so-called "sausage landings" of the villagers in the cities.

This campaign, initiated by Khrushchev, caused terrible harm to the Russian countryside. No wonder the Russian writer Vasily Belov called the fight against the so-called "unpromising" villages "a crime against the peasants." First of all, the indigenous Russian regions of the Non-Black Earth region, as well as the Russian rural population of Siberia, suffered.

The harm was multifaceted and enormous: from damage to agriculture to a demographic blow to the Russian people. After all, it was the Russian village that gave the main increase to the ethnic group of the Eastern Slavs.

It is worth noting that the blow was struck specifically against the Russian people and the Russian village with its traditional agricultural industries. After all, this campaign almost did not affect the national autonomies in the RSFSR. And such measures were not envisaged in relation to the rural regions of the national republics of the USSR.

The consequences of this "reform" were very numerous and spoke to Russian civilizations for decades. And they still have an effect. Thus, since the late 1950s, the degradation of the countryside has spread more and more actively throughout the Non-Chernozem region of the RSFSR, especially in Europe. As a result, by the second half of the 1980s, more than 70% of all state farms and collective farms of the European Non-Black Earth Region of Russia turned out to be chronically unprofitable, and the commercial yields of most agricultural crops and the productivity of pig and poultry farming turned out to be even lower here than in the first half of the 1950s. Similar trends emerged in the Urals and Siberia.

It was a blow to the food security of the USSR. If, under Stalin, products were exported from the USSR, then since the late 1960s, a bet was made on the import of agricultural products from the Eastern European socialist camp and Cuba. These were the long-term consequences of Khrushchev's policy in the field of agriculture and the countryside (including the virgin and "corn") epic. Things got to the point that in the 1970s articles were published about the inexpediency of growing sugar beet in Russia (!) Due to "guaranteed supplies of raw cane sugar from fraternal Cuba." By the mid-1980s, the share of Eastern European and Cuban imports in the supply of cities in the RSFSR with meat (including poultry meat), sugar and fruits exceeded 70%, and villages reached 60%. It was a disgrace and a disaster. The huge Soviet state, which had a traditionally strong agriculture, could not provide itself with food!

Thus, the USSR was hooked on food supplies from outside, although Russia-USSR, both then and now, has every opportunity for independent and complete food supply. All these are the consequences of the policies of Khrushchev and his followers, including modern Russian liberals. It is not surprising that the Russian village has been in chronic agony since those times, and the policies of Gorbachev - Yeltsin - Putin - Medvedev have practically finished it off. And in Russian stores we see meat, milk, vegetables and even berries from all over the world: from Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Israel, China, etc.

A blow to the reproduction of the population

As already noted, Khrushchev's experiments in agriculture caused great harm to the Soviet countryside, led to its bleeding. Another blow to the people was the decree that allowed abortion. In 1936, due to the difficult demographic situation, abortion operations were banned under pain of criminal liability by the Decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of June 27, 1936 "On the prohibition of abortion ..." The Decree also increased material assistance to women in childbirth, established state assistance to large families, expanded a network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens, etc. At the same time, abortions could be performed for medical reasons.

On November 23, 1955, by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR “On the Abolition of the Prohibition of Abortions,” the operation for artificial termination of pregnancy was allowed for all women if they had no medical contraindications. It should be noted that the USSR was an advanced country in this matter. In all developed Western countries, abortion was still banned. The Soviet Republic in 1920 became the first country in the world to legalize abortion at the request of a woman. It should be noted that in 1920 Trotskyists dominated the Soviet government. In 1955, the course that led Russia-USSR to destruction and the Russian people to extinction again prevailed. For comparison, a similar law was adopted in Great Britain only in 1967, in the USA - in 1973, in France - in 1975, etc.

On the one hand, Khrushchev's "reforms" were chaotic and disorderly, on the other hand, they were systemic. The essence of this system is destruction. For all their apparent confusion and disorder, for all the widest range of Khrushchev's undertakings, one general pattern can always be distinguished. All reforms led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet project as a whole. source-

-- [ Page 1 ] --

As a manuscript

Tikhonov Alexey Petrovich

Daily life of the Soviet village

at 60– 70s of XX century

(on the materials of the Kursk region)

Specialty 07.00.02 - National History

dissertations for a degree

candidate of historical sciences

Kursk - 2010

The dissertation was completed at the Department of the History of the Fatherland

Kursk State University

Scientific adviser:

Tretyakov Alexander Viktorovich

Official opponents: doctor of historical sciences, professor

Fursov Vladimir Nikolaevich

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor

Protsenko Boris Alexandrovich

Lead organization: Voronezh State

university.

The defense will take place on May 28, 2010 at 4 pm at a meeting of the dissertation council DM 212.105.05 at the Kursk State Technical University at the address: 305040 Kursk, 50 let Oktyabrya st., 94, conference hall.

The dissertation can be found in the library of the Kursk State Technical University.

Scientific Secretary

dissertation council

DM 212.105.05 V.V.Bogdan

general description of work

The relevance of research is determined by the increased scientific interest in recent years in the problems of the history of everyday life as a part of social history, its separation into an independent branch of historical knowledge, and the history of everyday life in the Russian village - into an equally independent direction in the development of domestic historiography.

The relevance of the study is due to the need to develop measures that contribute to the adaptation of rural residents to the new conditions that have developed in post-Soviet Russia. Ensuring the development of the Russian countryside in modern conditions, the withdrawal of agriculture from a crisis state requires the extraction and consideration of historical experience. The importance of historical analysis of the issues of improving the social and cultural development of the village allows us to show the role of party-state regulation in solving these problems.

At present, the formation and implementation of state policy in relation to rural settlements and their inhabitants, the preservation of historical traditions cannot be successful without taking into account the experience of the historical, social, cultural development of the village. At the same time, the daily, multifaceted life of the Kursk village in the 60s and 70s is clearly insufficiently studied. 20th century The regional approach to the study of rural problems used in the dissertation allows not only to see all the diversity of this historical reality that has not been previously studied in this aspect, but also to identify specific features in the phenomenon of “Soviet peasantry”, due to the regional affiliation of the object of study. Analysis and consideration of the positive and negative experience of the recent past will enrich the practice of social and political life of rural settlements in the Kursk region. It is important to show the real situation and life of the Soviet peasants. The above factors confirm the relevance of the topic of our study.

Object of study advocates the party-state policy to improve the life of the rural population of the Kursk region in the 60s - 70s. 20th century

Subject of study is the practical activity of party, Soviet, economic, Komsomol and public organizations to improve the socio-economic conditions of life of the rural population.

Chronological framework of the work. 60s - 70s 20th century characterized by a certain stability and systematic development of everyday life. From the 60s. conservatism began to grow in all spheres of life in Soviet society. The socio-political, socio-economic and cultural development of the country took place in conditions of conservative stability.

On the one hand, the state carried out a broad social program that expanded opportunities for improving the well-being and comprehensive development of the Soviet people. During the period under study, the formation of the social infrastructure of the village, the development of personal subsidiary plots of peasants, the active construction of social and cultural facilities took place, which made it possible to significantly reduce the gap between the city and the countryside. On the other hand, there were no real opportunities for a person to participate in public life, there was a drop in interest in practical matters, irresponsibility, passivity, which engulfed a significant part of society. Started with rather bold reforms in the field of the economy, the period under study ended with an increase in negative trends in all spheres of public life, stagnation in the economy, and a crisis in the socio-political system.

Geographic limits. The Kursk region is one of the typical industrial and agricultural regions of Russia, which also has a developed industry. On the territory of the Kursk region in 1959 there were 33 rural areas, 10 workers' settlements, 451 village councils, 625 collective farms, 26 state farms. 4% of the total population of the region.2 By the end of the study period, on January 1, 1980, the rural population decreased to 705 thousand people, accounting for 51% of the total population of the region.3

Historiography of the problem. All historiography on the problem under study can be divided into two periods: Soviet and post-Soviet.

The study of the problems of the countryside within the framework of domestic Soviet historiography was carried out under the influence of the official party-state ideology. As a result, scientific literature presented the daily life of the Soviet village as quite prosperous. In the works, the main emphasis was on positive trends in the development of village life and the improvement of peasant life.4

In the 1960s-1990s. saw the light of work, which laid down the principles for studying the key problems of rural life. Particular attention was paid to the socio-economic situation of the peasantry, its social structure, the culture of the village, and the peasants' personal subsidiary plots.5 The works of Professor M.A. Beznina.6

T.I. Zaslavskaya, Z.V. Kupriyanova, Z.I. Kalugina, L.V. Nikiforov and others.7 Problems of implementation of agrarian policy, modernization of agriculture, development of the Russian village in the 60s - 90s. 20th century found reflection in the works of V.V. Naukhatskogo.8

In post-Soviet historiography, the number of studies on the problems of the Soviet Russian village has been reduced. This was the result of the desire of certain forces to hush up the achievements of Soviet power in order to obtain political dividends. At the same time, work to collect statistical information intensified, and censuses of peasant households became regular. The study of the history of rural families and villages, the analysis of income and expenditure budgets of villagers, as well as the analysis of economic ties in rural settlements formed the basis of the study by V. Danilov and T. Shanin, who continued the traditions of A.V. Chayanova.9

An important contribution to the work on a comprehensive study of the history of the Kursk village in the 60s - 70s. 20th century made by the scientists of the region. Their works have accumulated significant factual material on the socio-economic situation of the collective farm peasantry, personal subsidiary plots of villagers and villagers, the process of forming social infrastructure and housing construction, and the development of culture in the countryside.10 Among them, the monograph of Professor P.I. Kabanova. He comprehensively studied the cultural transformations in the Kursk region in 1917-196711

In the post-Soviet period, scientists in the region began to pay special attention to the study of the life of the Kursk village, the socio-economic situation of the inhabitants of the countryside.12 An important contribution to the study of this problem was made by scientists from the Kursk State University. In the works of A.V. Tretyakov and N.A. Postnikov, the issues of the implementation of the party-state policy in the field of education, military-patriotic education in the countryside are considered. Bolotova and E.I. Odarchenko.14 Scientific works of A.A. Soynikova, M.M. Fryantseva, V.P. Chaplygin and I.A. Arepyev are devoted to various aspects of the development of the culture of the rural population of the Kursk region. Based on the materials of state and socio-political structures of the Central Black Earth Region, Kursk scientists studied the practical activities of party, Soviet, Komsomol and public organizations to improve the living conditions of the rural population.15

Since the 90s. 20th century scientists of the region pay special attention to the cultural history of the Kursk region. Collective and individual monographs, individual articles of researchers reflected the most important pages and events of the cultural life of the region in the period under study.16

On the whole, the historiographical review carried out shows that no special complex works have been carried out on this problem, which once again emphasizes the relevance of the research topic.

The purpose of the dissertation research is the study of the daily life of the Soviet village in the economic, social and cultural conditions of the Kursk region in the 60s - 70s. 20th century

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Show the processes of formation of the social infrastructure of the village, the construction of housing and social and cultural facilities;

To identify the features of the development of personal subsidiary plots, changes in the level of income and wages of the peasantry;

Consider the system of social services for the population;

To trace the main transformations in the sphere of healthcare, education and culture.

Source base dissertation work consists of legislative acts, reference sources, periodicals, statistical and archival materials, monographs, manuscripts of dissertations.

The first group of sources contains materials from congresses and plenums of the Central Committee of the CPSU, resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU for the RSFSR, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the RSFSR, Decrees of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the RSFSR, Laws of the USSR and the RSFSR, a collection of laws of collective farm legal acts.17

Reference sources contain a variety of information on the history of the Kursk village of the period under study. This group includes collections of historical documents of the Kursk party and Komsomol organizations.18 They describe the main directions of the policy of the party-soviet bodies in relation to the transformation of the countryside and the improvement of the living conditions of rural residents.

An important source is the periodical press. Its value lies in the fact that it shows in dynamics the process of improving the social situation of the rural population and the miscalculations in this work, as well as the reaction of the authorities and the population to the ongoing processes. Particularly valuable are the materials of the central newspapers - Pravda, Izvestia, Economic Newspaper, the regional newspaper Kurskaya Pravda, the regional newspapers Mayak Kommunizma (Gorshechensky District), For the Victory of Communism (Schigrovsky District).

Of particular value for understanding the essence of the problem and writing a dissertation work are the materials of the State Archive of the Kursk Region (GAKO) and the State Archive of the Socio-Political History of the Kursk Region (GAOPIKO). They contain sources showing the mechanism for implementing the party-state policy in various districts and in the region as a whole. These materials are devoid of splendor and have a more objective character.

The most important materials of the GAKO are the funds of the executive committee of the Kursk Regional Council of Workers' Deputies (F. R-3372), the Regional Planning Commission of the Executive Committee of the Kursk Regional Council of Workers' Deputies (F. R-3272), the Kursk Regional Department of Agriculture (F. R-3168), Kursk Regional Statistical Office (F. R-5006), Kursk Regional Department of Construction and Architecture (F. R-5293), Kursk Regional Financial Administration (F. R-4036), Kursk Regional Department of Health (F. R-4929), Kursk Regional Department of Public Education (F. R-4006), Kursk Regional Union of Consumer Cooperatives (F. R-5177), Kursk Regional Department of Social Security (F. R-5266), Kursk Regional Department of Public Utilities (F. R-311) containing extensive documents and materials on the history of the Soviet village during the period under study.

Valuable for the work was the fund of the Kursk Regional Committee of the CPSU (F. 1), located in the GAOPIKO and containing quite important material - resolutions and decisions of the highest party bodies, documents of the Kursk regional party committee, protocols of transcripts of regional party conferences and plenums.

Statistical materials are of great importance in the study of the daily life of the village. They contain important comprehensive information that reveals various aspects of the daily life of the population of the Kursk village; a variety of information on the development of health care, education, consumer services, trade, road construction, communications, electrification, culture, income level and social security of residents of rural settlements of the Kursk region.19

Methodological basis of the study. In the course of studying the topic, the author was guided by the general scientific principles of objectivity, which excludes the possibility of bias in the interpretation of facts, and historicism, which requires consideration of the studied processes and phenomena in relation to and in connection with other phenomena and processes that were outside the object of study. The specifics of the topic under study led to the use of a number of historical methods: historical-comparative, problem-chronological, systemic, and the widespread use of periodical materials and mass statistical data dictated the need for the use of essential-descriptive analysis, the statistical method.

Scientific novelty of the dissertation consists in posing the problem and is the first generalizing study in post-Soviet historiography of the everyday life of the Soviet village in the conditions of socio-economic and cultural transformations in the 60-70s of the twentieth century. Based on extensive source material (the bulk of the documents was introduced into scientific circulation for the first time), the author showed and proved that in conditions of conservative stability, the standard of living of rural residents increased, their socio-cultural activity increased, and the role of local government in solving household problems increased.

The practical significance of the work. The facts, conclusions and observations contained in the work can be used for further development of the problem, when creating generalizing works, in teaching general and special courses on national, social and regional history and organizing local history work. In addition, they may be of interest to economic and party-political structures.

Approbation of work. The main provisions of the work were discussed at the Department of the History of the Fatherland of the Kursk State University, were reported at the international and all-Russian scientific and practical conferences. The main content of the dissertation is presented in eight scientific publications, including two scientific articles published in publications recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation. The total volume of publications is 4 printed sheets.

Work structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, including seven paragraphs, a conclusion, a list of references and references.

The main content of the work

In administered the relevance of the topic is substantiated, the object and subject of the study, the chronological and geographical framework are determined, the historiographic analysis is carried out, the purpose and objectives of the study are determined, the source analysis is carried out, the methodological basis is determined, the scientific novelty, practical significance, approbation and structure of the work are shown.

First chapter " Improving living conditions in the Kursk villages" consists of two paragraphs. In the first paragraph "Design, housing construction and improvement in the countryside" the main trends in the transformation of rural settlements into comfortable settlements, improvement of their design and development of housing and cultural and community construction are shown.

The dissertation shows that the need to improve the living conditions of residents of rural areas was associated not only with the solution of the problem of securing youth in the countryside, but also with the achievement of a strategic goal - equalizing the socio-economic differences between the city and the countryside. The rural population justifiably demanded an improvement in living conditions, focusing on solving similar problems in the city. Unlike city dwellers, residents of rural areas solved their housing problems mainly on their own, which required additional labor and funds for the construction, maintenance and repair of comfortable housing.

It can be seen from the work that since the beginning of the 60s, work has been actively carried out in the region on the reconstruction and reorganization of rural settlements with promising status. It was carried out with the direct participation of the rural Soviets of Working People's Deputies on the basis of the general plans of collective farms and state farms, as well as the rules for building rural settlements. The purpose of their implementation was the construction of comfortable settlements with proper housing and cultural and living conditions that meet the real and natural needs of the rural population. Speaking about the prospects and possibilities of this work, L.G. Monashev, First Secretary of the Kursk Regional Committee of the CPSU, noted that “a modern village should be beautiful, convenient for life, work and recreation.”20

To achieve these goals, targeted loans were allocated to the collective farms of the region to assist the collective farmers in the construction of modern residential buildings. The amount of targeted loans in 1960 alone amounted to 1.5 million rubles.21 The construction of residential buildings, which was carried out under the control of the regional committee of the CPSU and the executive committee of the regional Soviet of Workers' Deputies, assumed that they would be equipped with water supply, gas networks, central heating, and sewerage. If in 1961-1965 the number of housing built in rural areas amounted to 43.1 thousand square meters,22 then from 1965 to 1969, 61.8 thousand square meters of living space were built in the collective farms of the region.23

How to make a gratuitous labor force out of prosperous peasants? For this, instead of an individual farm, it is required to organize a collective one, to fix workers on it for life and to impose criminal liability for failure to fulfill the plan.

Peasants during the NEP period often succeeded both in housekeeping and in the marketing of products. Representatives of this stratum of society were not going to sell bread at a low price offered by the state - they were striving to receive a decent wage for their labor.

In 1927, the necessary amount of food did not arrive in Soviet cities, since the state and the peasants could not agree on a price, and this led to numerous hunger strikes. Collectivization became an effective measure that made it possible to put in place the peasantry disloyal to Soviet values, and in addition, freely dispose of food, bypassing the stage of agreeing on the terms of the deal.

Why were the peasants unhappy?

Collectivization was not at all voluntary; this process was accompanied by large-scale repressions. But even after its completion, the peasants did not receive any advantages of working on collective farms.

Yekaterinburg historian I. Motrevich names many factors in the organization of collective farm activities that contributed to the degradation of the countryside. Both poorly and well-working collective farmers received equally little. In some periods, the peasants worked without pay at all, only for the right to use their personal plot. Therefore, people had no motivation to work conscientiously. Management solved this problem by setting a minimum number of workdays per year.

Collective farm products, as well as funds from their sale, were distributed as follows: first, the plan for state deliveries was fulfilled and seed loans were returned, the work of the motor-tractor station was paid in kind, grain was harvested for sowing and for animal feed for the year ahead. Then an aid fund was formed for the elderly, disabled, families of Red Army soldiers, orphans, part of the production was allocated for sale on the collective farm market. And only then the rest was distributed to workdays.

According to I. Motrevich, in the period of the 30-50s, the peasants could only partially satisfy their needs through payments in kind by the collective farm - 50% for grain, and only 1-2% for meat, milk, vegetables. Ownership was a matter of survival.

I. Motrevich writes that in the collective farms of the Urals, the share of production that was intended for workers was 15% in the pre-war period, and during the Second World War this value dropped to 11%. It often happened that the collective farmers did not receive their due remuneration in full.

During the Nazi aggression, the collective farms actually turned into state-owned enterprises with absolute dependence on the district leadership. The only difference was the lack of government funding. Important decisions were made by party workers, who often did not have the necessary qualifications and farsightedness, but were eager to curry favor with the party leadership. And the peasants were responsible for the failure to fulfill the plan.

The guaranteed minimum wage for the collective farmer began to be introduced only in 1959, 30 years after the start of collectivization.

How peasants were kept in the countryside

One of the consequences of collectivization was the flight of peasants from villages to cities, especially large ones, where workers were required at industrial enterprises. But in 1932, they decided to stop the outflow of people from the village. There were enough employees in factories and plants, but there was a noticeable lack of food. Then they began to issue identity documents, but not to everyone, but only to residents of large cities - primarily Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov.

The absence of a passport was an unconditional basis for evicting a person from the city. Such purges regulated the migration of the population, and also kept the crime rate low, but most importantly, reduced the number of eaters.

The list of settlements subject to passportization was expanding. By 1937, it included not only cities, but also workers' settlements, motor-tractor stations, regional centers, all villages within 100 kilometers from Moscow and Leningrad. But rural residents of other territories did not receive a passport until 1974. The exception was the peasants of the Asian and Caucasian republics, as well as the recently annexed Baltic states.

For the peasants, this meant that it was impossible to leave the collective farm and change their place of residence. Attempts to violate the passport regime were stopped by imprisonment. Then the peasant returned to his duties, which were assigned to him for life.

What were the ways to leave the village and change your fate

It was possible to change work on the collective farm only for even harder work - this is construction in the northern regions, logging, peat development. Such an opportunity fell when a distribution order for labor force came to the collective farm, after which those who wished to receive permits for departure, their validity period was limited to one year. But some managed to renegotiate the contract with the enterprise again and even become permanent employees.

Service in the army made it possible for rural guys to evade work on a collective farm with subsequent employment in the city. Also, children were saved from forced entry into the ranks of collective farmers, sending them to study in factory institutions. It is important that studies begin before the age of 16, otherwise there was a high probability that after studying the teenager could be returned to his native village and deprived of any prospects for another fate.

The situation of the peasantry did not change even after Stalin's death, in 1967 the proposal of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR D. Polyansky to issue passports to rural residents was rejected. The Soviet leadership rightly feared that if the peasants were given the right to choose, then they would not be able to get cheap food in the future. Only during Brezhnev's rule, more than 60 million Soviet citizens living in villages were able to obtain a passport. However, the existing procedure for hiring them outside the collective farm was preserved - this was impossible without special certificates.

Of great interest today are the photographs that render.

A humorous story was written by Ekaterina Solnechnaya about a vacation spent in the countryside.

"It happened not so long ago, last year, when the whole family went to visit my grandmother in the village. Me, husband Yura and two small children: son Vanechka and one-year-old daughter Alina have long wanted to visit my grandmother, and, accordingly, relax in the bosom of nature .

My husband and I took vacations and decided to rush to the village for the whole of July, at the same time help my grandmother, because she is already old, no joke - eighty-six years old! In addition, she also had her own garden and household: geese and chickens were her weakness.

Granny, though old, but very mobile for her age, met us as always with tears of joy, baked pies, ran to show me her considerable chicken farm.

Here, my Glashka brought out last summer, as many as fifteen pieces! Just look - what beauties! Already started to rush! - Grandma said excitedly, obviously proud of her pets.

Indeed, the grandmother's chickens were real beauties: gray, pockmarked and black Russian Corydalis with a blue tint. Their heads were adorned with a thick tuft of feathers that fell right over their eyes. The chickens were crawling in the ground, not paying any attention to us. And at the head of all this chicken society in the middle of the courtyard stood a handsome rooster, watching all his numerous harem. I must say that he apparently knew his worth, his Napoleonic stance betrayed this: he proudly raised his head, shimmering in the sun with black and red feathers, turned in front of his harem, demonstrating his magnificent cock's tail - the pride of a real rooster. Even the cats passing through the yard tried to bypass this proud handsome man, not wanting to mess with him.

They went to bed late, talked about everything: about relatives, and about acquaintances, and about familiar acquaintances.

I woke up quite late, my husband had already left to mow the grass, and my grandmother was busily busy with the housework, having kneaded the dough and fired up the stove. I was even ashamed: here is Sonya, she came to help, and I myself sleep until dinner! I hastily dressed, fed the children and sent them out for a walk, I myself asked my grandmother how to help her.

Nothing is needed, dear, rest! I've already done everything. Now I’ll just finish cooking dinner, we’ll call Yura and sit down at the table. In the morning I poured my wine into bottles, so we’ll take a sample, - then, after thinking a little, I added:
- Well, feed the chickens.

I went out to the village yard. “So, what do they feed the chickens?” I used to live in the countryside, but that was when I was very young. I remember that they peck at the grain and the waste from the kitchen is different. There was more than enough grain in the chicken feeder, and I decided to see if there were any tasty waste in the hallway, I knew where Grandma usually put them.

There was a pot with some berries in the corridor, they looked like they were made from compote. Taking this pan, I decided to treat the berries of chickens, suddenly they will like it! Sprinkling some berries into the feeder, I realized that the chickens really liked this delicacy, sprinkled more ... The chickens hastily pecked at the berries, trying to grab as many as possible, and the rooster, busily throwing them, also did not lag behind. I poured out all the berries for them, watching with a smile as they hurriedly peck them. “Now the chickens will definitely be full.” I washed the pan and went into the house, where the granny was already setting the table. After a little gossip about life, my grandmother took a bottle from the cupboard and put it on the table.

Here, she herself made wine from shadberry, now we will take the first sample. I went for Yura, and you get the borsch from the stove.

Grandmother winked at me and went out into the corridor, and I climbed into the oven for a pan. Then I heard a wild cry, gradually turning into a plaintive moan and lamentations. Grandmother! The pan flew out of my hands, and the borscht began to spread over the hot stove with a hiss. Not paying attention to this, I jumped out like a scalded woman after my grandmother, imagining various terrible pictures of what had happened on the run.

But what I saw didn’t fit in my head: my grandmother was standing in the middle of the lawn, and chickens were lying all over the yard ... dead. Grandmother, with tears and lamentations, picked up one chicken: she did not move, her eyes were covered with a muddy film, her tongue fell out of her beak.

Died! Grandmother was crying.

It's me ... It's my fault, I fed them berries from the pan ...

What pan?

The one in the hallway.

So, enough tears, - said Yura. - While they are still fresh, pluck them, even though there will be meat. They didn't die of illness.

I quietly took a large basin and dragged myself to collect the poor chickens. Grandmother also came to her senses a little, her lamentations were replaced by quiet sobs. We settled down in the kitchen by the stove and began to pluck the chickens. Our work lasted about two hours, the last was a rooster.

Grandmother herself decided to pluck him. Having plucked out his tail and wings, she asked me to take out the feathers, there were already several buckets of them. Taking two buckets, I carried them out into the corridor and put them by the door, because I knew that my grandmother would decide to dry the feathers and use them later on pillows.

And then I heard a wild cry again - grandmother screamed again. Rushing to the kitchen, I froze in place, gradually sliding down the wall to the floor: in the middle of the kitchen, a half-plucked rooster stood on unsteady legs and shook its head, naked chickens swarming in the basin, trying to get out.

My poor grandmother was sitting on the floor and, clutching her heart with her hand, groaned softly, watching this action with huge eyes.

O-come alive! - it seems that the whole situation completely finished off the grandmother. I could not utter a word, I just got up and turned over the basin with chickens, which began to disperse throughout the kitchen.

The rooster, seeing naked chickens, apparently got more scared than us, rushed to the door from the kitchen and collided with the cat.

He, in turn, apparently never saw half-naked roosters and did not know what to expect from them, jerked away from the rooster with a wild cry, and with one jump jumped out of the window, along the way dragging the entire curtain with him.

At that moment, the husband appeared at the door. Seeing the rooster, he stepped back, while turning so pale, as if he saw a ghost in front of him, then he followed the rooster with a long look and went into the kitchen.
For about five minutes he stared blankly as naked chickens surrounded a bucket of water and drank greedily.

Sushnyak, - said the husband and laughed loudly. I drove the poor chickens out into the yard and took care of my grandmother, calming her down, dripping valerian into a glass of water. At this time, Alina began to cry in the yard. I ran out to her roar; she poked her finger at the naked chickens, which were running around the yard like mad, not understanding what had happened to them, and could not understand why the legs suddenly began to walk.

Since that time, Alina no longer goes into the yard alone - she is afraid of naked chickens, and she no longer looks into the refrigerator, because there is no, no, and some kind of chicken leg or frozen chicken was lying around.

Grandmother came to her senses, laughed a little with her husband, discussing this funny village story, the great drinking and the new outfit of her pets, especially their haircuts; after all, we did not pluck the feathers from the very top of the head. But the whole village came to stare at the naked chickens for a long time, people stood by the fence for hours, holding their stomachs and hiccuping.

The rooster, on the other hand, spent most of the day sitting in the thick grass, afraid to appear in this form. Only occasionally did he go out to the feeder, avoiding meetings with his naked harem. Apparently the sight of naked chickens with lush feathered hair on the top of his head frightened him even more than his bare bottom.

Since then, to the question “How can I help you?” grandma replies:
- I'll feed the chickens myself!
And when I enter the meat department of the store and see frozen chickens, every time I involuntarily hold back a smile, remembering the summer spent in the countryside. "

Repost from the internet

On the last 2 photos - naked chickens bred in Israel.