Personal Subsidiary Research Articles

Дом или квартира: о попытках модернизации сельских архитектурных практик в 1930-х гг. (по материалам Юга России)

The article reveals the essence of the Bolshevik ideas on significant changes in the architectural appearance of a collective farm village, due to the conduct of complete collectivization in Russia. The author analyzes the circumstances that forced the Bolsheviks to abandon the radical projects of housing restructuring and agree with the preservation of individual house-building and personal subsidiary (personal) farming. The article shows the consolidation of the agricultural artel' (agricultural cooperative) as the main form of collective farm construction, the orientation toward the traditional family, the negative attitude of the peasantry towards the communes as factors that ensured the fixation of the parameters of the individual collective farm in the 1936 Constitution of the USSR.

SUCCESSFUL RURAL FARMSTEADS: HEIRS OF TRADITIONS AND INNOVATORS

The article deals with the problems of the life activity of a group of families, which are characterized by socio-structural features that differ from the main mass of members of rural communities. These are families that are oriented toward self-sufficiency of their well-being with resources at the expense of a larger personal subsidiary farm. Using traditionally peasant resources (domestic animals, the fertility of personal plots of land, crafts), they began to create a standard of living quite comparable to what provided labor in other ways. Although they are differentiated in terms of economic size, but in general, their standard of living is generally higher than that of fellow villagers employed only in agricultural organizations or living on funds obtained as a result of pendulous labor migration. The author, based on the method of sociology, included observation, considers this group, named “successful masters of rural farmsteads”, from the point of specifying the goals and meanings of activity, the results achieved, and comparing it with successful representatives of the farming system. Although there is a big difference between the way of life of families of successful rural farmsteads and the farmer, but there are also common features inherent in modern agrarians, connecting the innovations of agrarian science and the peasant nature management culture. They are united by their attitude to challenges and threats of a natural and social nature. The combination of the traditions of the peasant in the work activity, which include not only different methods of work, but also the diversity of options for taking into account the specific nature, with innovations introduced by agrarian science, is an essential characteristic of the style of life of successful farms of rural farmsteads. Some families are dominated by either peasant or new industrial methods of work. Families, among whose members there are machine operators of a wide profile and the necessary equipment, often specialize in servicing villagers (and even organizations based in another village) for the prosperity of various cargoes. The main difference between successful owners of farmsteads and families with small-sized private household plots is the target of autonomous existence based on the resources of the family - physical, professional, spiritual and moral. Maintaining the family of the family economy becomes an indispensable attribute of life-support, regardless of whether the family members have a work place in the agricultural organization or not.

НОВЫЙ КАПУСТОУБОРОЧНЫЙ КОМБАЙН

In recent years, significant structural changes have taken place in agricultural production, small forms of management have developed substantially. A spontaneous migration of a significant part of the vegetable crops from the public sector to personal subsidiary and farming enterprises occurred. In this situation, the concept of creating for the current consumer a multivariate technique that adapts to changing production and agro-technical conditions has become relevant. In order to implement the above-mentioned concept, a multivariate cabbage harvester was developed in the Chuvash State Agricultural Academy together with JSC “TechMA” of “Tekhmashholding” group of companies, equipped with radically new working units: a cutting device, a separating device, a bulk transporter, a copying mechanism, cabbage in a sparing regime. The harvester allows to organize the harvesting process of cabbage in three technological schemes: shipment of cabbage in bulk to a universal vehicle device; shipment of cabbage to the containers, installed in the body of the vehicle; by shipping the cabbage first to a flexible floor of a trough-like shape, and then manually shifted to containers.

Денежные доходы и расходы полных (нуклеарных) семей колхозников Свердловской области (по данным бюджетных обследований 1960 года)

The article is devoted to the subject insufficiently developed in the national historiography, in particular in regard to its regional dimension. The purpose of the article was a study of incomes and expenses of farmers’ intact (nuclear) families of Sverdlovsk region in 1960. The study is conducted on materials of State archive of Sverdlovsk region and archive of the Territorial body of Federal state statistics service for Sverdlovsk region with the assistance of Internet sources as well as scientific and publicistic literature. The new materials discovered by the author in these archives are introduced into scientific usage. It is noted that nuclear families, as the most typical and widespread, were chosen by statistical bodies for the above-mentioned regular annual surveys of family budgets. It is argued that although family data were the basis (“core”) for statistical surveys, they themselves rarely became the object of research by sociologists and historians. It is stated that there was a rather serious differentiation of cash incomes and expenses of the surveyed full families of collective farmers. It is stated that the characteristic feature of nuclear families was their relatively young age in comparison with other types of families of collective farmers. The significant role of the personal subsidiary farm in the economy of the surveyed families is proved. It is declared that the most part of expenses of incomplete families of collective farmers were expenses on food and industrial goods. It is concluded that even taking into account the significant incomes from personal subsidiary farm, the total income of nuclear families was slightly lower than the income of families of urban workers.

Доходы и расходы многодетных семей колхозников Свердловской области (по данным бюджетных обследований 1965 года)

The article studies the problem of material living conditions of large families in the USSR. The study was conducted on the materials of the State Archives of the Sverdlovsk Region (SASR) and the current archive of the Territorial Body of the Federal State Statistics Service for the Sverdlovsk Region (TBFSSSSR), involving Internet sources, as well as scientific and journalistic literature. The relevance of the topic is due to its importance for the social sciences, especially for history, sociology and economics. The scientific novelty of the work is seen in the fact that new materials discovered by the author in the funds of these archives are introduced into use. The article focuses on the analysis of incomes and expenditures of collective farmers large families. It is noted that large families have rarely been the object of research by sociologists and historians. It is stated that it did not have a social or demographic effect in the form and in the amounts state support was provided to large families. It is stated that serious differentiation of average per capita monetary incomes and expenditures of the surveyed families of collective farmers was not observed. The significant role of personal subsidiary plot (PSP) in the economy of the families surveyed is proved. It is declared that most of the expenses of large families of collective farmers were the costs of food products and non-food industrial goods. It is concluded that even taking into account the incomes from PSP per capita incomes (and, accordingly, expenses) of large families were significantly lower than the same indicators of families of urban workers, and collective farmers in the Sverdlovsk region.

CREATIVE POTENTIAL OF THE OLDER AGE GROUP IN THE RURAL SOCIETY

The issues of the older age group of the rural population are discussed in the paper on the basis of objective and subjective prerequisites affecting the activeness of its involvement in socio-cultural activities. Taking into account the wide horizon of socio-cultural practices of the older age group, the authors used the concept of creative potential, which includes elements of human, labor and social potentials. This concept allows overcome the context of the meaning of oldness as the exhaustion of human power spiritual and physical. Unlike the similar urban group, where elderly men and women have guaranteed resources for social services and, if they wish, can find a sufficiently wide range of employment, rural people face limitations in terms of preferential living arrangements. Owing to the optimization of the medical service infrastructure, hospitals and paramedic centers have become less available for them. Since for the same reason schools in villages where there are few children have been closed, elderly people are more concerned about the safety of their grandchildren, who now have to cover long distances every day to get to schools located in other settlements. Due to the fact that older children of the older age group are not always employed where they live and have to seek job far beyond even their own region, the burden on those staying on, including pensioners, to maintain the family farmstead has increased. The vector of the manifestation of the creative potential of the older age group can most fully be implemented in the profession. To the greatest extent, this is demonstrated by the elderly people with higher and secondary special education. Their share in the structure of the rural society is quite high, whereas agricultural enterprises and independent farms are in no opportunity to provide them with jobs for legal reasons. Keeping their jobs are such representatives of the older age group as agronomists, engineers, economists, experiences machine operators and cattle breeders. Given their reliability, farm managers are reluctant to replace them. The underutilization of the creative potential of this group of the elderly is obvious. Rural communities also have high shares of elderly people with primary and incomplete secondary education, who before the beginning of the agrarian reform were engaged in different kinds of manual work, the amount of which in the new time has significantly decreased. Therefore, this part of the older age group has focused on working in their households helping their adult children. If they are alone, their activeness in this field gets reduced and sometimes they even completely abandon their personal subsidiary farming. But many of this group becomes beekeepers, and this kind of employment allows them feel they are needed by their city relatives and fellow villagers, who are interested in business communication with them. The paper also assesses the people‟s viability, which is most prominently represented by the older age group of rural residents.

63(b). The Introduction of Amendments to the Model Contract between Consumer-Cooperative Organizations and Kolkhozes (Sovkhozes) for the Purchase of Livestock, Poultry, Rabbits, and Milk Produced at the Personal Subsidiary Farms of Citizens

63(b). The Introduction of Amendments to the Model Contract between Consumer-Cooperative Organizations and Kolkhozes (Sovkhozes) for the Purchase of Livestock, Poultry, Rabbits, and Milk Produced at the Personal Subsidiary Farms of Citizens

The Personal Subsidiary Farm in Soviet Agriculture

The Personal Subsidiary Farm in Soviet Agriculture

The Economic Role of Personal Subsidiary Husbandry

Until recently the opinion was widespread in economic practice and the economics literature that the personal subsidiary husbandry of collective farmers, workers and employees retards the development of social production, diverts a substantial part of the labor resources from the social economy, and hinders collective farmers and state farm workers from working productively in collective farms and state farms. The social and personal economies were contraposed as entirely different spheres of application of labor. The existence of personal subsidiary husbandry was explained by the "small proprietor" psychology of the peasants, their insufficient interest in the development of the social economy, and so on. This scornful attitude toward personal subsidiary husbandry and the administrative measures taken to restrict it led to a drop of 4,100,000 in the number of head of cattle in the personal husbandries of collective farmers, workers and employees by January 1, 1965, as compared with 1958, including a drop in the number of cows by 2,400,000; the number of hogs decreased by 670,000, and the number of sheep and goats by 5,800,000. In six years the gross output of personal subsidiary husbandries declined by 88, which could not but affect the rate of growth of agricultural production for the country as a whole. Between 1958 and 1964 the physical volume of sales of agricultural products at the collective farm markets in towns declined by a third, of which: potatoes and poultry - 30%, vegetables - 26%, and animal husbandry products - almost 40%. Sales of beef and milk fell by a factor of 2. And there waa a corresponding considerable rise in prices on these markets. The prices in 1964 were 27% higher on the average than in 1958; the price of potatoes was up a third, of vegetables - 23%, and of animal husbandry products - almost 40%. Beef and milk prices went up almost 36?& and those of poultry rose 1.5 times.

The Economic Role of Personal Subsidiary Husbandry

Until recently the opinion was widespread in economic practice and the economics literature that the personal subsidiary husbandry of collective farmers, workers and employees retards the development of social production, diverts a substantial part of the labor resources from the social economy, and hinders collective farmers and state farm workers from working productively in collective farms and state farms. The social and personal economies were contraposed as entirely different spheres of application of labor. The existence of personal subsidiary husbandry was explained by the "small proprietor" psychology of the peasants, their insufficient interest in the development of the social economy, and so on. This scornful attitude toward personal subsidiary husbandry and the administrative measures taken to restrict it led to a drop of 4,100,000 in the number of head of cattle in the personal husbandries of collective farmers, workers and employees by January 1, 1965, as compared with 1958, including a drop in the number of cows by 2,400,000; the number of hogs decreased by 670,000, and the number of sheep and goats by 5,800,000. In six years the gross output of personal subsidiary husbandries declined by 8%, which could not but affect the rate of growth of agricultural production for the country as a whole. Between 1958 and 1964 the physical volume of sales of agricultural products at the collective farm markets in towns declined by a third, of which: potatoes and poultry — 30%, vegetables — 26%, and animal husbandry products — almost 40%. Sales of beef and milk fell by a factor of 2. And there was a corresponding considerable rise in prices on these markets. The prices in 1964 were 27% higher on the average than in 1958; the price of potatoes was up a third, of vegetables — 23%, and of animal husbandry products — almost 40%. Beef and milk prices went up almost 36%, and those of poultry rose 1.5 times.

Some Problems of Internal Rural Trade Turnover

Under the conditions of agricultural specialization and full-scale development of commodity relations, a substantial part of the production and personal needs of collective farms is satisfied through expansion of the trade turnover between collective farms and their members, between collective farms and the personal subsidiary economies of the collective farm households, and so on. The internal rural commodity turnover is, by virtue of its socio-economic character, an important component of the collective farm market. It is directly linked with the distribution and sale of the collective farm's produce, with the forms of labor remuneration for the collective farm peasantry, and with the personal subsidiary economies of the collective farm households.