Comments on the Short-Term Consequences of the Holodomor
The article examines the short-term impact of the famine of 1930s on the development of the collectivization, the penal policy and social attitudes.
The article deals with participation of representatives of Iranian traditional middle class (bazari) in political struggle, taking establishment and evolution of Mujahedin-i Khalq-i Iran, one of the most influential militant and political organizations of the second half of XXth century in Iran, as a case study.
In what follows I make two interrelated claims: 1. It is necessary to understand terrorism as a communicative action, not as a negative label. There are thus 5 major types of terror actions (Affective, Traditional, Value-Rational, Rational and Hyper Rational), which have little in common. The term ‘terrorism’ itself is an empty abstraction and it is impossible to ‘fight terror’. 2. Terrorism may be and often is much more morally constrained than ‘warrism’. Terroristic struggle is, at least in theory, morally superior to war. Two case studies (Russian terrorism and Chechen terrorism) are provided as empirical justification of the claims.
This work deals with key aspects of the Stalin’s policy in relation to the village in the Ural in the 1930s. Based on a large documentary material, the author examines in detail both social and property status of the ‘dekulakized peasants’ of the Ural, which, by 1932, had become the largest area of labor settlements. Special attention is paid to the methodological issues of the study, in particular, to the justification of the representativeness concerning the selection of households prepared, its further evolution in the course of the work, as well as laying special emphasis on the multidimensional typology of the social portrait of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants.
Three e-prosopographical databases were created – ‘Dekulakized’ peasants of the Southern Ural (1930-1934)’ based on 34 parameters for 1461 ‘dekulakized’ families; ‘Labor settlers in the Southern Ural (1930-1934)’ based on 20 parameters for 1200 families of the labor settlers; and ‘Dekulakized’ peasants of the Orenburg region (1930-1934)’ based on 34 parameters for 210 families of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants. Databases in question have become a tool for analysis of the generalized characteristics of the ‘dekulakized’ households and the subsequent reconstruction of the social portrait of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants of the Southern Ural and the Orenburg region.
Causes and reasons for ‘dekulakization’ were analyzed. Thus, according to the documents, the policy of the country administration had been reciprocated neither by peasants, who could not understand why they were taken the last piece of bread at hungry times and denied the opportunity to raise the economy of the households, nor by the local leaders, who had periodically ‘perverted’ the party line, which turned out to be not so direct as it was seen from the Center.
As in the whole throughout the country, in the Southern Ural, the ‘dekulakization’ campaign, reinforced by the famine of 1932-1933, has affected not only the rich peasant families (they obviously would not be enough to perform ‘the control figures’), but wealthy medium peasant households, as well, that, on the one hand, has neutralized property differentiation of the peasantry, preparing the appropriate soil for the functioning of the collective farms, and on the other hand, has significantly slowed down the rate of growth of the agricultural production, destroying entrepreneurial initiative, which became stronger during the NEP, and significantly shaking the trust of the peasants to the country administration.
For eight decades of the study of various aspects of the history of the Soviet ‘dekulakization’, an extensive and diverse literature was developed, hundreds of studies were written, among which the works of the following authors are of particular note: V. P. Danilov, N. A. Ivnitskiy, Y.A. Moshkov, N.L. Rogalina, T.I. Slavko, N.Y. Gushchin, V.V. Kondrashin, etc. So much academic interest in the topic can be explained very simply: by 1926, 73% of the USSR population was presented by peasants, and the policy, pursued by the government, could not have been affected such huge population in the most devastating way, especially given the traditionally strong relationship between peasant families.
Historiography of the ‘dekulakization’ issue at the present stage is concentrated towards the revision of the estimates based on multiple vectors, including both identification of social groups and layers, on which repressions were directed, and personification of ‘dekulakization’ in the fate of certain families.
In the present work, we focused on social and economic aspects of collectivization and ‘dekulakization’ of the peasantry of the Ural, as well as reconstruction of the social portrait of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants of the Southern Ural and the Orenburg region.
The book is designed both for specialists in economic and social history of the USSR, and a wide readership interested in the Stalin’s collectivization and ‘dekulakization’ in the 1930s.
The article, based on archives materials, analyzes a reaction of the victims of repressive policy (peasants and their home-folks) in Perm Region to the beginning of «dekulakisation» and expulsion, also discovers the motives of peasants' complaints to the authorities.
This book examines the history of reforms and major state interventions affecting Russian agriculture: the abolition of serfdom in 1861, the Stolypin reforms, the New Economic Policy (NEP), the collectivization, the Khrushchev reforms, and finally the farm enterprise privatization in the early 1990s. It shows a pattern emerging from a political imperative in imperial, Soviet, and post-Soviet regimes, and it describes how these reforms were justified in the name of the national interest during severe crises – rapid inflation, military defeat, mass strikes, rural unrest, and/or political turmoil. It looks at the consequences of adversity in the economic environment for rural behavior after reform and at longrun trends. It has chapters on property rights, rural organization, and technological change. It provides a new database for measuring agricultural productivity from 1861 to 1913 and updates these estimates to the present. This book is a study of the policies aimed at reorganizing rural production and of their effectiveness in transforming institutions.
The end of 19the century and the beginning of the 20the century were characterized by the enormous outbreak of the Russian terrorism. The mass and systematic terror was unleashed by several revolutionary groups against the Russian government, which was impotent for due actions. The terror was founded on a certain moral philosophy and had ethical background, both of which were rooted in the idea of justice. The article lays claim to uncover the basic content of this idea and reveals the process of its subsequent transformation which led to mass terror of the state against the majority of the population.