Content deleted Content added
Rescuing 4 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) (AManWithNoPlan - 15895 |
Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction Fixing style/layout errors Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
||
Line 30:
The ''[[obshchina]]'' ({{lang-rus|общи́на|p=ɐpˈɕːinə}}, literally: "[[Agricultural commune|commune]]") or ''[[Mir (commune)|mir]]'' ({{lang-ru|link=no|мир}}, literally: "society" (one of the meanings)) or ''Selskoye obshestvo'' ({{lang-ru|link=no|сельское общество}} ("Rural community", official term in the 19th and 20th century) were peasant communities, as opposed to individual farmsteads, or [[khutor]]s, in [[Imperial Russia]]. The term derives from the word о́бщий, ''obshchiy'' (common).
The vast majority of Russian peasants held their land in [[Open field system|communal ownership]] within a mir community, which acted as a village government and a cooperative. Arable land was divided into sections based on [[soil quality]] and distance from the village.
== Collectivization under state socialism ==
Line 53:
In [[Socialist Republic of Romania|Romania]], land collectivization began in 1948 and continued for over more than a decade until its virtual eradication in 1962.<ref>A. Sarris and D. Gavrilescu, "Restructuring of farms and agricultural systems in Romania", in: J. Swinnen, A. Buckwell, and E. Mathijs, eds., ''Agricultural Privatisation, Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in [[Central and Eastern Europe]]'', Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, 1997.</ref>
In Romania, force sometimes had to be used to enforce collective agricultural practices. Collective farming in Romania was an attempt to implement the USSR's communist blueprint. Unfortunately, these attempts often fell short. By strictly adhering to this Soviet blueprint, the implementation of communism in Romania inevitably created dilemmas and contributions that led to violence. Kligman and Verdery state "The violence collectivization, emerges then, less, as an abhoration<!-- is "abhoration" a typo? I cant find that as a real word. was "abberation" meant? --> than as a product of sociocultural shaping and of deep problems with how the soviet blueprint came to be implemented... instead of a gradual and integrated process of moving from one form of society to another, Romanian society in the Soviet orbit was being completely rearticulated, a process in which violence was inevitable."<ref name="Kligman, G. 2011">Kligman, G., & Verdery, K. (2011). Peasants under siege: the collectivization of Romanian agriculture, 1949–1962. Princeton University Press.</ref>
On the other hand, as Kligman and Verdery explain, "Collectivization brought undeniable benefits to some rural inhabitants, especially those who had owned little or no land. It freed them from laboring on the fields of others, and it increased their control over wages, lending to their daily existence a stability previously unknown to them."<ref name="Kligman, G. 2011"/>
Line 64:
In [[People's Republic of Hungary|Hungary]], agricultural collectivization was attempted a number of times between 1948 and 1956 (with disastrous results), until it was finally successful in the early 1960s under [[János Kádár]]. The first serious attempt at [[collectivization]] based on [[Stalinist]] agricultural policy was undertaken in July 1948. Both economic and direct police pressure were used to coerce peasants to join [[cooperative]]s, but large numbers opted instead to leave their villages. By the early 1950s, only one-quarter of peasants had agreed to join cooperatives.<ref>[[Iván T. Berend]], ''The Hungarian Economic Reforms 1953–1988'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.</ref>
In the spring of 1955, the drive for collectivization was renewed, again using physical force to encourage membership, but this second wave also ended in dismal failure. After the events of the [[1956 Hungarian Revolution]], the ruling [[Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party]] opted for a more gradual collectivization drive. The main wave of collectivization occurred between 1959 and 1961, and at the end of this period more than 95% of agricultural land in Hungary had become the property of collective farms. In February 1961, the Central Committee declared that collectivization had been completed.<ref>Nigel Swain, ''Collective Farms Which Work?'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.</ref>
=== Czechoslovakia ===
{{unreferenced section|date=December 2006}}
In [[First Czechoslovak Republic|Czechoslovakia]], centralized land reforms after World War I allowed for the distribution of most of the land to peasants and the poor
The third and final phase forbade possession of land above {{convert|50|ha}} for one family. This phase was carried out in April 1948, two months after the [[Communist Party of Czechoslovakia]] [[1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état|took power by force]]. Farms started to be collectivized, mostly under the threat of sanctions. The most obstinate farmers were persecuted and imprisoned. The most common form of collectivization was ''[[agricultural cooperative]]'' ({{lang-cz|Jednotné zemědělské družstvo}}, JZD; {{lang-sk|Jednotné roľnícke družstvo}}, JRD). The collectivization was implemented in three stages (1949–1952, 1953–1956, 1956–1969) and officially ended with the 1960 implementation of the constitution establishing the [[Czechoslovak Socialist Republic]], which made private ownership illegal.
Line 82:
=== East Germany ===
{{Main|Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaft}}
Collective farms in the [[German Democratic Republic]] were typically called {{lang|de|[[Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaft]]}} (LPG), and corresponded closely to the Soviet kolkhoz. East Germany also had a few state-owned farms which were equivalent to the Soviet {{lang|ru-Latn|sovkhoz}}, which were called the {{lang|de|[[Volkseigenes Gut]]}} (VEG). The structure of farms in what was called [[East Elbia]] until German partition was dominated by [[latifundia]], and thus the [[land reform]] which was justified on [[denazification]] grounds<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hdg.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/plakat-enteignung-volksentscheid.html|title = Gerade auf LeMO gesehen: LeMO Objekt: Plakat Volksentscheid über Enteignungen}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hdg.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/plakat-bodenreform.html|title = Gerade auf LeMO gesehen: LeMO Objekt: Plakat Bodenreform}}</ref> and with the aim of destroying the Prussian ''[[Junker]]'' class – which had been hated by the left during the [[Weimar Republic]] and which was blamed for Prussian militarism and the authoritarian tendencies of the [[German Empire]] and later [[Nazi Germany]] – was initially popular with many small farmers and landless peasants. East German President [[Wilhelm Pieck]] coined the slogan {{lang|de|Junkerland in Bauernhand!}} ("Junker land into farmer's hand!") to promote land reform, which was initially pledged to be more moderate than full-scale collectivization. Although the ruling [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|Socialist Unity Party]] and the [[Soviet Military Administration in Germany]] promised to allow large landowners to keep their land, they were expelled as the LPG were introduced in 1953. After 1959 all farmers were required to surrender independently owned land and join the LPGs.<ref>Naimark, Norman M. (1995). ''The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945–1949''. Cambridge: Belknap Press. pp. 86, 164–166</ref> Similarly to the Soviet Union, ultimately most of the land was transferred into ''de jure'' or ''de facto'' state controlled entities with the former farmers becoming employees – now of the state instead of the erstwhile ''Junker'' class.
=== Poland ===
Line 100:
By June 1956, over 60% of rural households had been collectivized into higher-level agricultural producers' cooperatives (''gaoji nongye hezuoshe''), a structure that was similar to Soviet collective farmering via ''kolkhozy''.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=110}} In these cooperatives, tens of households pooled land and draft animals.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=110}} Adult members of the cooperative were credited with work points based on how much labor they had provided at which tasks.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=110}} At the end of the year, the collective deducted taxes and fixed-price sales to the state, and the cooperative retained seed for the next year as well as some investment and welfare funds.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=110}} The collective then distributed to the households the remainder of the harvest and some of the money received from sales to the state.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=110}} The distribution was based partly on work points accrued by the adult members of a household, and partly at a standard rate by age and sex.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=110}} These cooperatives also lent small amounts of land back to households individually on which the households could grow crops to consume directly or sell at market.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|pages=110-111}} Apart from the large-scale communization during the Great Leap Forward, higher-level agricultural producers' collective were generally the dominant form of rural collectivization in China.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=111}}
During [[The Great Leap Forward]], the [[Mao Zedong]]-led Communist Party rapidly convert the [[Economy of China|Chinese economy]] to a socialist society through rapid industrialization and large
Collectivization of land via the commune system facilitated China's rapid industrialization through the state's control of food production and procurement.<ref name=":12">{{Cite book |title=CPC Futures The New Era of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics |date=2022 |publisher=[[National University of Singapore Press]] |isbn=978-981-18-5206-0 |editor-last1=Pieke |editor-first1=Frank N |location=Singapore |pages=55 |doi=10.56159/eai.52060 |oclc=1354535847 |editor-last2=Hofman |editor-first2=Bert |doi-access=free}}</ref> This allowed the state to accelerate the process of [[capital accumulation]], ultimately laying the successful foundation of physical and [[human capital]] for the economic growth of China's [[reform and opening up]].<ref name=":12" /> During the early and middle 1950s, collectivization was an important factor in the major change in [[History of agriculture in China|Chinese agriculture]] during that period, the dramatic increase in irrigated land.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=111}} For example, collectivization was a factor that contributed to the introduction of [[Double-cropping|double cropping]] in the south, a labor-intensive process which greatly increased agricultural yields.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=116}}
Line 106:
Both land reform movement and collectivization largely left in place the social systems in the [[Ethnic minorities in China|ethnic minority group]] areas of Chinese [[Central Asia]] and [[Zomia]].<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=118}} These areas generally underwent collectivization in the form of agricultural producers' cooperatives during winter of 1957 through 1958, having skipped the small peasant landholder stage that had followed land reform elsewhere in China.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=122}} Central Tibet was under the joint administration of the [[People's Liberation Army]] and the Dalai Lama's theocracy until 1959, and consequently did not experience land reform or collectivization until 1960 in agricultural areas and 1966 in pastoral areas.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|page=119}}
After the [[death of Mao Zedong]], [[Deng Xiaoping]] reformed the collective farming method. From this time, nearly all Chinese crops began to blossom, not just grain.
A 2017 study found that Chinese peasants slaughtered massive numbers of draft animals as a response to collectivization, as this would allow them to keep the meat and hide, and not transfer the draft animals to the collectives.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Chen|first1=Shuo|last2=Lan|first2=Xiaohuan|date=2017|title=There Will Be Killing: Collectivization and Death of Draft Animals|journal=American Economic Journal: Applied Economics|language=en|volume=9|issue=4|pages=58–77|doi=10.1257/app.20160247|issn=1945-7782|doi-access=free}}</ref> The study estimates that "the animal loss during the movement was 12 to 15 percent, or 7.4-9.5 million dead. Grain output dropped by 7 percent due to lower animal inputs and lower productivity."<ref name=":0" />
| |||