Talk:Sovkhoz

Untitled
'This article was listed on Votes for deletion in May 2004. The result of the discussion was a consensus to keep the article. An archive of the discussion can be found at Talk:Sovkhoz/Delete.''

On my sources: the numbers are from. The text is written by myself. Andris 04:47, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I started adding to Sovkhoz and writing kolkhoz, but soon realized that the articles share much. Also, comparison of these forms is required. I suggest to make a single article, Collective farming in the USSR. Also, to avoid confusion, I suggest eiher to rename Collectivisation in the USSR into History of collectivisation in the USSR or to make it into a section of the new article. Any opinions? Mikkalai 04:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with having a single article Collective farming in the USSR. Andris 04:53, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * A memo for future writing: in early times, there were intermediate forms of collective farming called &#1090;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1088;&#1080;&#1097;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086; &#1087;&#1086; &#1086;&#1073;&#1088;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1082;&#1077; &#1079;&#1077;&#1084;&#1083;&#1080;, or &#1058;&#1054;&#1047;. Standard translation: "agricultural association", literal translation: "association for land tillage". Mikkalai 04:48, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

See extended discussion regarding inefficiency at Talk:Collectivisation in the USSR. Fred Bauder 15:12, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * My point exactly: Information about efficiency must be in a single place, referred from multiple other places. This is a norm in wikipedia not to duplicate information over different pages, so that the description may easily diverge and say opposite things at different pages. Mikkalai 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reverted this page because it had a lot of material which didn't seem to belong here. I suspect that back in February, a lot of information 86.6.111.214 added (about the results of collectivization) was new to wikipedia, but now the collectivisation article takes care of the most of it. Also, there was some re-duplicated text (at the top and near the bottom).--128.135.24.226 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Serfdom
Since Mikkalai has asked that the discussion of this is brought here rather than his talk page, I have put the categories "unfree labor" and "serfdom" back in for the following reasons:

1. The collective farmers were unfree and serfs

The reasons for this are obvious. They were tied to their farms. They could not leave without the permission of their "owner" - the State. They could not choose what to grow. They could not sell to whomever they liked. They were economically exploited. By any reasonable definition, they were state-owned serfs. I am happy to provide sources that make precisely that claim. Lao Wai 10:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Obviously you don't know the subject, just heard bits and pieces (I know what you are talking about, but I am not going to educate you until you learn the basic rules of wikipedia: to provide references when you are asked). The farmers could leave. What to grow and whom to sell decides the manager, which is only natural and not the reason to be "serfdom". All working people in the world are economically exploited. If you continue your additions without proper references, you will be in danger to be blocked from editing for disruption of wikipedia. Please learn to respect wikipedia rules. they are for important reasons. `'mikka 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Simple abuse is not an argument.  Arrogance is childish.  References for what?  There are no claims to be defended here.  Simply inclusion in two categories that are clearly appropriate.  You are wrong to assert that what to grow was a decision the manager, but let us suppose it was.  The manager was not the farmer.  He was the representative of the States - the owners. In fact you are simply proving my point: the collective farmer was not free.  You may defend serfdom if you like, but it is not natural for people to be told what to grow and when by the State.  Farmers could not leave without a passport which was not granted in the vast majority of cases.  Obtaining one became a serious preoccupation of the young.  Actually serfs in Imperial Russia seem to have had fewer problems leaving.  Threaten all you like.  I am happy to go to arbitration any time you feel like it.  I do not intend to be bullied.  Lao Wai 18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A worker in an automobile plant does not decide which cars to make. But we don't tag automotive industry with "serfdom". One last time: either you provide a reference to your claim or I will request you being blocked for ignoring wikipedia policies. `'mikka 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A worker in a Western car factory can quit. You could make a case that a Soviet car worker was a serf.  However the definition of a serf is a farmer who is tied to the land.  By any reasonable definition that includes Collective farmers.  Request away.  I am happy to dig up sources, but sources for what?  You do not even seem to be denying the truth of these claims.  You make an effort to explain to me what you think is wrong, and I'll make more of an effort to provide sources for whatever it is that you object to.  Nor am I making any - I am just including two categories which are clearly relevant.  But if you think I am doing something wrong, please ask whomever you like.  Lao Wai 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A source if you like,


 * "Soviet Trade Unions"., Review author[s]: W. W. Kulski, The Journal of Politics © 1951 Southern Political Science Association. pp 283-286


 * Or these,


 * http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/940428/fitzpatrick.shtml


 * http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/russians_soviets_3670.jsp


 * http://www.country-studies.com/russia/transformation-and-terror.html


 * Or those well known Fascists at PBS,


 * http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/countries/ru/ru_full.html

Please read the defininion of unfree labor: for those work relations, especially in modern or early modern history, in which people are employed against their will by the threat of destitution, detention, violence (including death), or other extreme hardship to themselves, or to members of their families.

Sovkhozniks were not serfs. they were not forced to work. They were not "tied to land". You can leave sovkhoz and make living by making matryoshka dolls, weaving bast shoes, making wooden spoons whatever.

Freedom of travel means nothing: Palestinians in refugee camps are not allowed to to work freely wherever they want in Lebanon or Jordan, but this does not make them serfs. Freedom of travel/Soviet pasport system in Soviet Union placed many various restrictions, but it was what it was: restriction of free travel.

Low wages and long hours also not sufficientr reason. When in 91th century workers worked for 14 hours in America for cents this was not called "unfree labor". (Actually, it was called; by socialists. But it was a political epithet to describe condition where there was no choice "either you work or starve". But no one actually forced workers to work and we do not put the article factory into category:unfree labor.)

People may use political epithets at will, but one have distinguish when it is a political epithet nd where definition. `'mikka 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Soviet Union had a specific legal offense of "parasitism" which meant that anyone who did not work in an approved manner could be sent to the Gulag. Sounds like a threat to me.  Yet again I will point out the obvious fact that Collective Farmers could not move off their farms nor could they make a living at anything else without the permission (and usually the direction) of their owners - the Soviet State.  Freedom of travel means everything and I find it hard to imagine what sort of person would claim otherwise.  Ask the former serfs - by the way, do you find Imperial Russian serfdom totally acceptable because the freedom to move means nothing?  I agree that the Palestinian refugees, as non-Lebanese, are not serfs but your parallel is merely absurd.  It is not merely a restriction on travel but 1. being tied to the land, 2. being forced to work at the State's direction, 3. being unable to sell your produce to anyone but the State at low prices fixed by the State, and 4. generally being a serf.  I did not mention low wages and long hours although I am happy to point out that the Soviet economy was based on forcing the peasants to hand over their surplus at less than economic prices.  Socialist accumulation.  Look it up.  American workers could quit.  Soviet farmers could not.  All in all I find this an irrelevant response.  So far all you have done is bully, insult, deny the truth and threaten to denounce me to the authorities.  A very Soviet response actually.  Political epithets is what you are insisting on, not me.  Lao Wai 10:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot put an article into a category without the corresponding text in the article that supports inclusion in the category. It is plain and simple. YOur angry speeches in the talk page are irrelevant. Why is it so difficult to understand? `'mikka 15:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am happy to add corresponding text - and could you please point out to me where that rule exists? I am happy to edit these two pages to make the categories even more explicitly relevant than they are now.  The only angry speeches I see are yours - your whole argument has consisted of nothing but insults, bullying and threats.  I would be delighted if you stopped and started a proper discussion.  There is nothing here to not understand.  Collective farmers were not free, arguably they were a type of serf.  They belong within that category.  As far as I can see every single claim you have made the contrary is not true.  The term is used in the academic literature.  It is appropriate.  Why not include it? Lao Wai 14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: do not add the categories.

Observations:
 * User:Lao Wai wants to add two categories, namely Unfree Labour and Serfdom, to two articles, and employs the following arguments to support his case:
 * Alleged historical accuracy ("The collective farmers were unfree and serfs")
 * Alleged support by reliable sources


 * User:Mikkalai opposes adding the two categories, employing the following arguments:
 * Alleged lack of historical accuracy ("Sovkhozniks were not serfs. they were not forced to work.")
 * Alleged lack of support by reliable sources ("..without proper references..")
 * Lack of text in the article dealing with the subject matter of the two categories in question.


 * The dispute is about adding categories - that is silly. Go and write about the subject.

Analysis on the Serfdom category:
 * The introduction of unfree labour is quite clear on serfdom: "...the term "serf" is usually used only in relation to pre-modern societies, under feudal political systems." Particularly in Russia, where abolishment of Serfdom is a big thing in the political history of that country, writing that the collective farms were employing serfs is confusing. Lao Wai's argument #1 is incorrect.
 * All references cited to support the inclusion of a serfdom category do mention the word "serfdom", but only when comparing the situation in the USSR collective farms to the situation in the former feudal empire/a feudal state. Leo Wai's argument #2 is incorrect.
 * It has to be noted that Mikkalai's statement, quoted above under #1, is incorrect too. The reason for the conclusion below is not the absence of forced labour, but the fact that the word 'serf' is used exclusively in a feudal context. Mikkalai's argument #1 is incorrect.
 * Don't include the serfdom category.

Analysis on the Unfree Labour category:
 * The qualification of work in USSR collective farms as "unfree labour" was not clear from the sources cited. Wikipedia does not do original research, and interpreting sources in a way not immediately clear is OR. Lao Wai's argument #2 is incorrect.
 * Without a source and relevant text in the article don't add a controversial category. However, I do not see why historical inaccuracy should be a reason to exclude this category, if a reliable source could be found. Forms of Unfree Labour like Truck system and Bonded labour could be applied to the collective farms in some ways. Get a source.
 * BTW, why would Truck system be unfree labor? The article doesn't give any clue. I am asking the question there. (In fact, its talk page already has an opinion that it is incorrect) `'mikka 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not comment further unless a request is made on my talk page or another third opinion is requested.

--User:Krator (t c) 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. This is now getting a mess.  I agree the term "serf" is usually used for pre-modern societies, but that does not mean it is only so used.  There is nothing confusing about it and if there is confusion, the solution is to rewrite the article to make it clearer.   fail to see that the sources I have provided only use it in relation to pre-Modern Russia and even if they did, it would not matter as the Collective farmers would remain, essentially, serfs.  The word serf is not used exclusively of feudal societies (even if we could agree what feudal meant).  The quote you gave uses usually.  Your objection does not seem a strong one to me.  Can you please expand a little more?  Lao Wai 14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the unfree labor, I am not sold on the category and would not fight for it. However there is still no OR on my part.  What have I written that would suggest that?  I am happy to add text if you all would be interested however laws against parasitism are so well known that they would tend to fall into the category of background.  However, if you all want, I would be delighted to edit the article to that end.  I don't even see what is controversial about it. Lao Wai 14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me elaborate further on the applicability of "unfree labor". The form of kolkhoz in itself is not based on forcing people to work. Is a kolkhoznik didn't work, he simply was not paid, that's it. One could easily leave a kolkhoz. At certain period of Soviet history (not all the time!) peasants could not freely move out of rural areas into towns. But they still could survive (I will not go into details; it would be silly in the talk page). Even at this period, anybody (I repeat, anybody) could migrate to work in coal mines or in logging, where was chronic lack of workforce. Of course if you wanted to stay a peasant, then you were in trouble. This is no essential difference with, say, United States of 20th century period of the Great Depression, where people roamed from coast to coast in search of any job.

I am not going to argue about the amount of freedom in Soviet Union. But this is a major political and philosophical issue, not economical one. `'mikka 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not paid? Sorry but who exactly owned the farmers house?  Who provided food for his meals?  Who provided medical care?  No one could leave a kolkhoz easily.  That was the point of the internal passport system - as the entire Soviet economy was based on the extraction of an agricultural surplus from the peasants which made the urban population relatively well off, the Soviet state had to force the rural population to remain in the countryside.  This is well documented in any text book you like on the USSR and I am happy to quote several if you like.  Certain periods?  You mean before Yeltsin?  I agree that you could ask to be transferred to an even worse job - jobs I notice that zeks usually did.  So?  It is grotesque to compared the freedom of movement in the US with the massive man-made famine created by this system of serfdom that verged on the genocidal.  I just don't see how you can make that claim.  What were Ukrainian peasants doing during their famine?  Not wandering.  Lao Wai 14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

sovkhozniki
The discussion on russian talk page mentioned (ru:User:Wladimir Mesin, 06.01.2006) that the "sovkhozniki" is an incorrect word, it wasn't used neither in real life, nor in the official documents. It's an error. This is because Sovkhoz was state-owned. Nevertheless, the word "kolkhozniki" did exist, they were members of kolhoz. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because nobody argued, I'll delete this passage about "sovkhozniki". --Yuriy Lapitskiy 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed
Lao Wai adds false and incorrect material, but since no one else bothers to edit this page, despite my requests for comments in several places, I am tired to figth stubbornness alone, leaving the article tagged for future editors. `'mikka 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the numbers: more research needed
"The number of state farms grew from less than 1,500 in 1929 to just over 23,000 by the end of the Gorbachev era in the late 1980s.

...

In 1990, the Soviet Union had 25,500 farms, 45% of them being sovkhoz and 55% kolkhoz."

More research needs to be done on state farms. There are inconsistent figures here: 11,500 state farms in 1990 is MUCH less than 23,000 in the late 80s.
 * 23,000 in the late 1980s is correct; the total number of farms in 1990 is incorrect; percent of sovkhoz is correct; para edited to eliminate inconsistency. --Zlerman (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)