Knocking Down the Fences: A Technology-Based Approach to Collectivising the Lowlands in Communist Albania

The present study entitled ”The Sovietization of Romania. Case-study: the collectivization of agriculture” drawing on Romanian archive documentation and specialized literature proposes to reveal, based on processes and facts the main similarities and the minor differences existing between the institutional mechanisms involved in the collectivization of the Romanian agriculture and the Soviet model. In this attempt, by way of comparison I will analyse the Soviet model of Socialist transformation in agriculture against the Romanian one. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n8p298

THE STARTING POINT FOR AGRICULTURAL TRANSITION in Central and Eastern Europe was moulded by two features of socialist agriculture. First, socialist agriculture was everywhere a combination of large-scale socialist (state or collective) and small-scale private (mainly part-time and self-supply-oriented) farming, whose proportions were not everywhere the same. Second, the main reason why these combinations of large-scale and small-scale farming differed was that socialism developed different models of 'collective farming', with different pricing and taxation mechanisms, and differing understandings of the role of private production. With the collapse of socialism, regimes were faced with the common task of providing compensation for historical injustices and restructuring large-scale farms, privatising them in the case of state farms, returning them to real owners in the case of co-operative (collective) farms. But, although the underlying problem was the same, countries addressed it differently because their 'collective farming' experiences had been different, and these differences had impacts on the pattern of post-socialist development generally, and on receptiveness to change and on the principles adopted in the legislation for restitution and restructuring of large-scale agriculture in particular. This article compares the Czech, Slovak and Hungarian experiences both at the national and local levels, the latter being based on extensive research carried out in the villages of the region.1

This article explores what is told about the supposed “collapse” of the collective farms in Lithuania, how is the negative connotation explained, and how is it attuned to the negative understanding of collectivization and collective farms in general. Relying on the theoretical literature dedicated to narrative and trauma, a scheme of cultural trauma narrative is formulated as a conceptual tool. Through narrative analysis of qualitative interviews collected in Panevėžys, Jonava, and their vicinities in 2021, it is demonstrated that the collective farm of early Soviet times is seen negatively, but the collective farm of late Soviet times is defined as a consistent unit. During transformation, this unit is suddenly disintegrated. Ordinary people are defined as the main victims. The named perpetrators can be divided into two groups. The first one is local people: the former chairs of the collective farms and other local leaders are mostly mentioned, as well as the “smarter ones” (“gudresnieji”). The second group is comprised of National government and Vytautas Landsbergis (personally); they are assigned a fatal role. A group of “critics” has been analytically distinguished. These informants have been harshly critical of collective farms regardless of times and distanced themselves from parlance regarding the “collapse” of collective farms. However, some of the “critics” repeated some elements of the cultural trauma narrative.

This concluding chapter presents a comparative analysis of agricultural privatisation and transformation policies, land reform and resulting changes in farming structures in Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) based on the country studies in this volume, the discussion at two workshops and on additional information from a related study on the political economy of agricultural privatisation and farm restructuring (Swinnen, 1997a). Our comparative analysis yields some general patterns in both the process of agricultural privatisation and land reform, the resulting farm structure, and their determinants. Some important observations are the following: Most CEECs have chosen to restitute collective farm land to former owners. Moreover, former owners who kept legal rights to their land were restituted property rights on their land without exception. Former owners who lost their legal ownership title were restituted land only in Albania, Slovenia and the Baltic States. In Albania the majority of land is distributed to farm workers. In the majority of CEECs, state farm land is leased, pending sale of the land. For example, in Eastern Germany nationalised land is managed by the Land Utilisation and Administration Company and leased to former owners who lost their ownership titles and to legal entities. The main exceptions are the restitution of state farm land in Slovenia, and the distribution to farm workers in Albania. Non-land assets have typically been privatised through other procedures than those used for land. In many cases they are privatised using vouchers 334which can be turned into capital shares in the new co-operative farm or used for purchasing non-land assets for private use. Privatisation does not necessarily lead to full transfer of all property rights to new (private) owners. In other words, the post-reform effective property rights distribution is only partially determined by the land privatisation legislation. Following the enactment of the necessary legislation, state and collective farms have been transformed into a wide variety of farm organisations, such as producer co-operatives, joint stock companies, limited liability companies, partnerships and individual farms. Large-scale production organisations still dominate agricultural production in several CEECs. Many new land owners lease their land to the large- scale successor organisations of the collective and state farms. In 1994, they cultivated more than two-thirds of the total agricultural area in Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. In several other CEECs individual farming has become the dominant farm organisation. This includes Poland and Slovenia, where small-scale farming dominated under the Communist period, and Albania, Latvia and Romania, where spontaneous privatisation led to the widespread break-up of collective farms.

The research is devoted to an important topic for historical, economic, and legal science, the implementation of the agrarian policy of the Soviet state in the countryside with the help of an agricultural tax in the initial period of mass collectivization. In scientific works on this problem, it can be noted that there is insufficient study of certain aspects of taxation, especially at the regional level. Therefore, the study of the main provisions of the legislation on agricultural tax and its application in the largest Ural region at that time will make it possible to fill in the existing gaps in science, to determine the place and role of taxation in collectivization. The purpose of the article is to reveal the peculiarities of agricultural taxation in the Urals in the early 1930s, to identify benefits for individual agricultural producers. The object of the study was individual peasant farms, personal subsidiary farms of collective farmers and collective farms, and the subject was the actual application of agricultural tax. The article uses both general scientific methods and historical-genetic, comparative and other methods of historical research. Taxation indicators in the Urals were compared with data for the country in order to identify the peculiarities of the region. The analysis of documentary materials showed how the authorities prioritized the taxation of the village, what a negative impact this tax had on the situation of individual farms, primarily the well-to-do. Dispossession, the decline in the production of agricultural products, the ruin of peasant farmsteads, the forced entry of peasants into collective farms that had preferences in taxation, were the result of socialist transformations in agriculture.

Co‐temporality and <i>Sovremennost'</i>: Late Imperial and Early Soviet Photographs

In the era of the digital economy, where digitization permeates all sectors of society, digital transformation in agriculture stands as a crucial solution for addressing the growing challenges in agricultural production. Amid the competition to enhance the resilience of sustainable food systems, China sets an exemplary model with its achievements in digital agricultural transformation, providing a blueprint for developing countries in Asia and the Pacific. Primarily based on statistical data and typical case studies, this paper presents analytical findings on how digital transformation of agriculture enhances the adoption of green agricultural practices and promotes inclusive development in China. In light of the intricate challenges faced by China’s food system, the adoption of digitization emerges to facilitate the transformation from conventional agriculture to smart and sustainable practices. The pathways by which digital transformation of agriculture have the potential to address the over-application of chemical fertilizer and irrigation water, mitigation of carbon emissions, and the challenge of climate change and contribute to environmental sustainability of agriculture have been discussed. The implementation of digital transformation in sustainable agriculture—which enhances green practices and social inclusiveness by promoting digital literacy, reducing workload, creating job opportunities for low-skilled labor, and developing rural inclusive finance—has been completely explored. The challenges in digital transformation of agriculture are explained in this paper, which also provides evidence-based policy recommendations for its sustainable development applicable to developing countries.

This chapter on Africa documents the region’s unfolding agricultural and broader economic transformations, explores the underlying drivers and implications of these transformations, and considers the new policy priorities dictated by these developments. It starts with an analysis of the shifting role of agriculture in the development of African economies, and the history and status of agricultural transformation and its implications for economic growth, poverty reduction, food systems, and nutrition. The second section reviews changes in agricultural productivity growth over time. The third section discusses patterns of poverty reduction and urbanization and related changes in diets, as well as their effects on agrifood systems and nutrition outcomes. The fourth section summarizes four broad trends that illustrate Africa’s agricultural transformation to date and briefly discusses their possible future evolution.

Change in Social Capital – A Case Study of Collective Rice Farming Practice in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam

The high-quality development of agriculture is closely related to technological innovation, but the evolutionary characteristics of the relationship between agricultural transformation and technological innovation have received little study. This study takes 13 main grain-producing areas of China as the research object. Data collection was from 2004 to 2019. Based on the coupling coordination and responsiveness models, we analyze the spatio-temporal agriculture comprehensive level and the associated response degree of agricultural transformation to technological innovation. The results showed that (1) the comprehensive development of technological innovation showed a growth trend, while the agricultural transformation showed a U-shaped growth trend; (2) the coordinated development of these two systems has been significantly improved, but there are differences in the development speed of each province; (3) the coordinated gravity center moved southward in the spatial pattern, eventually presenting the characteristics of "higher level in the east and lower level in the west, while the higher level in the south and lower level in the north"; (4) the influence of technological innovation on agricultural transformation gradually changed from inhibition to positive promotion. In the end, this paper puts forward suggestions on the high-quality development of agriculture from the relationship of technological innovation and agricultural transformation.

Artikkel keskendub nõukogudeaegse, eriti stalinistliku perioodi ühismajandi mudeli põhjalloodud spetsiifilise ruumi- ja ajakogemuse kirjeldusele ja analüüsile. Püüdes esile tuua mõningaid iseloomulikumaid jooni selles tajukogemuses, vaatleb artikkel ühismajandit ühelt poolt radikaalseid muutusi produtseeriva sotskolonialistliku tööriistana, teisalt aga uut inimtüüpi tootva seadena. Käesolev uurimus mõtestab vaadeldava nähtuse spetsiifikat eelkõige esteetiliste uuringute raames, keskendudes tajukogemuse poliitiliselt suunatud teisenemisele. Uurimus on osaliselt inspireeritud ka autori isiklikust lapsepõlvekogemusest hilise ühismajandi tingimustes, selle eesmärgiks oli jõuda mainitud sensooriumi tähenduslike elementide sidusama analüüsini, võttes aluseks tekstid, mis ühel või teisel viisil peegeldavad uuritava sensooriumi tingimusi. The article explores the specific sensorium of collective farms, especially kolkhozes, as they were created during the Soviet era in the countryside of occupied Estonia. It aims at examining the collective farm primarily not as an economic system, but as an aesthetic phenomenon and as a universal utopian model that served to translate the Marxist-Leninist ideology and its multiple implications into reality. It has to be emphasized that aesthetics is not defined here in the traditional meaning of referring to a set of aesthetic values, nor is it considered as referring to the arts, but is interpreted as referring etymologically to the experience of time and space, both individually and collectively.During the World War II, as a result of the withdrawal of the Nazi army, Estonia was reoccupied by the Soviet army. Although some sovkhozes or state-owned farms were created already shortly after the beginning of the first period of occupation and annexation of Estonia by Soviet Russia in 1940, it was only in the late 1940s that it was decided by the party authorities to proceed to a rapid and massive forced collectivization that followed more or less the model already widely in use in the whole Soviet Union. The effects of the forced collectivisation, accompanied by a mass deportation that took place on March 1949, turned out to be extremely devastating for the local communities in Estonia. The forced collectivisation paved the way for radical changes of the whole sensorium.Nevertheless, the article does not aim at establishing historical facts or bring new information concerning the systematic Sovietisation of the society, it rather tries to analyse the specific atmosphere that encompassed the human action. In order to examine the specific sensorium created in the collective farms of Soviet Estonia, the article makes use of some concepts borrowed from French theorists Henri Lefebvre and especially Jacques Rancière. Although neither Lefebvre nor Rancière have explicitly written about the Soviet system, it nevertheless appears that their concepts, for example that of production of space (and time) by Lefebvre or that of distribution of the sensible by Rancière are productive and relevant in elucidating the main features of the sense experience specific to the model of a collective farm. From the distribution and articulation of time and space to the ideologically determined modes of being that characterised the ordinary life of the workers in the early kolkhozes, the article attempts to determine the key features of what makes up the sensorium of collective farms. Undoubtedly, an important feature is a shift between the private and the collective; collective farms established a collective sensorium with its specific affective model, the private sphere of life being marginalised and controlled in most aspects. To illustrate the ideological pressure on society, it suffices to refer to the manifold utopian narratives, often naive and manipulative, which were spread systematically by party members, agitators and other proponents of collective farms. These utopian narratives attempted to convince everybody that kolkhozes stood at the forefront of modernisation and that their advantage over individual farming was self-evident.It has to be emphasised that collective farms, especially kolkhozes, submitted to the rule of the communist party and served as tools of Soviet neo-colonialist politics that attempted to rapidly change not only the mode of economic production, but also to produce a new mode of reality that would conform to the predicaments of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. Moreover, individual subjects were also invited, within the strict ideological limits, to contribute to the production of this new reality. Thus the production of a new sensorium was in fact accompanied by the production of new subjectivities, a necessary element on the way towards the utopian future where social antagonism would be eliminated and happiness and prosperity would be accessible to all who would accept the ideological requirements of the Soviet power.While shedding light on the transformations that took place within the complex sensorium of collective farms, this article argues that the sensorium of the collective farm played a crucial role in the Sovietisation of the whole society. Its establishment also functioned as a method of control that would exclude all deviations, thus contributing to the production of a new Soviet subjectivity.

presented in chapter 6, it is a well-known fact that agricultural collectivization, compounded by the severe flood in 1970s, devastated wet rice farming and consequently led to the starvation of large number of farmers.Factoring such ground level developments in Laos might have resulted in a better interpretation of statistics.Although statistics obviously include potential biases and errors, it is also true that they are often the only data available from which we can infer geographical variations and longitudinal changes in agriculture.Although the findings of this book are neither groundbreaking nor innovative, Gambling with the Land is undoubtedly an informative reference on the agricultural transformation in Southeast Asia over the last 60 years.

Practices of Formation of Managerial Personnel in Collective Farms of the Middle Urals in 1965–1982: on the Issue of Preserving Collective Farm Democracy

Taking communist Albania as a case study, this contribution investigates the role that highly educated professionals, like engineers, agronomists, and doctors – often identified through the generic term “technocrats” – played in promoting the secularist policies of Tirana's communist regime. Until now, scholarly work has not devoted the necessary attention to this group, which, in many ways, embodied the triumph of a “scientific” understanding of the world and rational skepticism about the existence of God. Through the technocrats, this contribution will also investigate the interaction between the discourses and the material, technological, and economic transformations that took place in Albania under communism, in an effort to pay more attention to the engineering of society, nature, and economy, and the intermingling of ideological, economic, and technological dynamics. This approach allows us to understand both atheism and religious reawakening in the late 20th century – quite often accompanied by fundamentalist, right-wing conservatives, and antimodern projects. The Albanian communist regime's efforts to forge new subjects and radically alter existing social and economic structures were not separate spheres but rather part of the same modernizing project. Subjectivity is not detached from the socio-economic context. It is necessary to overcome the culture-economy dichotomy that still defines a good part of contemporary historiography. To grasp the degree of erosion of religious practices in everyday life, besides the role of the Party and its structures, it is also critical to analyze the role of the technocrats in promoting a scientific outlook of the world.

In order to gain a nuanced insight into the causal connections between political leadership and agricultural transformation, the book studies four empirical country case studies. The cases include both successful and unsuccessful cases of agricultural transformations. This chapter outlines the first step of our empirical inquiry and takes stock of the state of the agricultural transformation in our four cases. This includes the well-known successful agricultural transformation in Taiwan, China (1950–1980), the failed agricultural transformations in the Philippines (1946–2020) and Malawi (1964–2020), and the mixed record of Ethiopia’s agricultural transformation (1994–2020).