Novosibirsk. Nauka Publishing House. Sibirskoe otd-E. 1976. 477 pp. The print run is 1,650. Price 1 rub. 96 kopecks.

The current stage of development of Soviet historical science is characterized by a close attention to historiography and a higher level of research in this area. This is reflected in the creation of monographic works on historiography. A number of such works on the problems of socialist transformation of agriculture have been published by agricultural historians .1 The book under review differs from them in that the authors ' collection2 chose to analyze the literature on the history of the peasantry in only one, but very important and significant region, and in that it takes a broader chronological framework-from the Great October Socialist Revolution to the present day. The authors saw their task in summing up the results of studying the main problems of the history of the Siberian peasantry, and identifying promising areas for further development of the topic. The solution of these problems is especially important in the context of preparing a multi-volume generalizing work on the history of the Siberian peasantry.

The book highlights three stages of the historiography of the Soviet peasantry with the boundaries of the mid-30s and 50s. Literature on the history of the post-war village is also divided into three stages: 1946-mid-50s, mid-50s-mid-60s and from that time to the present day. In general, this periodization is consistent with the general periodization of the development of Soviet historical science in the USSR. 3 However, it is doubtful that the authors identify 1920 as the starting point of Soviet historiography (pp. 7, 33, 109). More correct is the point of view of researchers who start counting from 1917, based on the fact that the formation of Soviet historical science began shortly after the victory of the socialist revolution, and the foundations of Soviet historiography were laid by V. I. Lenin4 .

The authors made an attempt, which was generally successful, to trace the development of the historiography of the Siberian peasantry in close connection with general historiography, as if to fit local historiography into the all-Union one. "Historiographical reviews of specific regional problems," the book says, "can and should include an analysis of works on an all-union scale, since many of the propositions put forward by the authors of historical, economic, and philosophical studies are essentially applicable to all agricultural regions of the Russian Federation" (p.367). That's right. However, unity in the implementation of this task is not fully achieved. Thus, in the first and third chapters, general works on the problems under consideration are presented mainly in the form of a bibliographic list, in the reader's references to historiographical reviews. The authors of the fifth chapter, contrary to the quoted statement, write:: "Since the general analysis of research on the topic under consideration is given in historiographical works,.. this chapter mainly analyzes publications on Siberia" (p. 256).

The most optimal correlation between local and general historiographical material is achieved in the fourth chapter, where not only the works of Siberian farmers are analyzed in depth, but also in the course of the presentation, many general problems of the historiography of the Soviet peasantry, organically connected with regional historiography, are touched upon.

As a rule, the authors do not limit themselves to the historiographical analysis of the available literature, the presentation of certain positions and points of view, but express their own

1 A.M. Chinchikov. Soviet Historiography of the socialist transformation of agriculture (1917-1969). Moscow, 1971; V. A. Smyshlyaev. The triumph of Lenin's Cooperative Plan (A historiographical sketch of the history of agricultural collectivization). L. 1972; V. I. Pogudin. The path of the Soviet peasantry to socialism. Historiographical sketch, Moscow, 1975.

2 Authors ' collective: V. T. Aniskov, L. I. Bozhenko, N. Ya. Gushchin, V. A. Zibarev, S. F. Orlyanskin, M. E. Plotnikova, L. N. Prikhodko, R. S. Rusakov, G. L. Samzhiev, P. S. Safroneev, Yu. B. Strakach, L. N. Ulyanov, V. I. Shishkin, M. V. Shishkin, V. V. Shishkin. M. Shornikov. Editorial Board: N. Ya. Gushchin (editor-in-chief), A. N. Soskina (editor-in-chief), L. N. Prikhodko, V. I. Shishkin.

3 "Essays on the history of historical Science of the USSR", vol. IV. Moscow, 1966, p. 12.

4 V. I. Pogudin. Op. ed., pp. 13, 15-18.

page 151

opinions on the substance of the issues raised, provide arguments in support of their position. Of considerable interest are their opinions and conclusions on such complex and insufficiently developed issues as the socio-political nature of the partisan movement in Siberia and the nature of the Soviets of partisan districts (p. 69-73), the state of the productive forces and the economic situation of the Siberian countryside in 1920 (p. 82-83), the content and stages of the agrarian revolution in Methods of social grouping of the Siberian peasantry (p. 129, 135, 166-167), reasons for the widespread spread of communes in the Siberian countryside (p. 184-187) , formation of the collective farm peasant class during the transition period and its intra-class structure (p. 230-234), socio-economic relations the peasantry of the national regions of Siberia on the eve of the October Revolution and in the pre-kolkhoz period (p. 402 - 404, 414 - 416, 424 - 425), features of collectivization in these districts (pp. 432-436).

The book shows the continuity of historiographic stages, the progressive development of historiography in the course of accumulating knowledge, improving the methodological training of researchers and methods of their work. In the previous historiographical work of Siberian historians, the evaluation of literature of the 1920s on the history of the village was one-sided (only its merits were noted)5 ; this work also deals with its weaknesses - the limited source base, some methodological errors, and sometimes encountered subjectivism of the authors. At the same time, attention is drawn to the intensity of the development of the history of the village in those years, to the presence in publications of valuable factual material obtained as a result of various surveys, sociological and budgetary surveys, processing data from the censuses of 1917 and 1920. (p. 58 - 59, 109 - 112, 141 - 142).

The data presented in all chapters clearly show that since the mid-1960s, there has been a significant increase in activity in the development of the history of the Soviet peasantry, the scope of research has expanded, and the approach to the problems under study has become deeper, more comprehensive, and more objective. "From the second half of the 60s," the authors of the seventh chapter conclude, "the third period in the study of the history of the post-war village begins, characterized by a further expansion and deepening of research, as well as a noticeable overcoming of subjectivism in assessing certain processes of agricultural development" (p.335). A similar historiographical period could be identified in other chapters.

Some critical assessments and judgments borrowed by the authors from the Historiography of Soviet Siberia are outdated, for example, the conclusion: "The reasons that led the Soviet government to undertake the elimination of the kulaks as a class in the form of forced expropriation need to be investigated" (p .211).6 Correct for 1968, this remark ceased to be so with the publication of the monographs of N. Ya. Gushchin, N. A. Ivnitsky, and I. Ya. Trifonov.

One can hardly agree with the authors ' support for distinguishing the so - called "imaginary" collective farmers in the pre-war years in the intra-class structure of collective farmers-individuals who, for one reason or another, did not take an active part in social production (p.233).

The conclusion that in the pre-war years machine operators remained an intra-class stratum in the collective-farm peasantry according to the main class-forming characteristics (p. 233) is inaccurate. This is refuted by the information given in the book that in 1936 combine harvesters were included in the MTS staff. The assessment of 1932 in the history of agricultural collectivization is also contradictory: On page 203, we speak of a certain ebb of peasants from the collective farms at the beginning of this year, and on page 228, we speak of the consolidation of the success of collectivization this year and the first significant achievements in the organizational and economic strengthening of the collective farms.

Agricultural specialists are actively developing the history of the post-war Siberian village. A significant part of the book is devoted to the analysis of the literature of this period. The authors justifiably criticize some works that underestimate the period before the September 1953 Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU in the life of the Soviet countryside, rightly emphasize the effectiveness of measures to overcome the severe consequences of the war, and give a mostly correct assessment of the literature on the development of agriculture and the peasantry of Siberia in the 50s. Well-deserved attention of the research team-

5 " Historiography of Soviet Siberia (1917-1945)". Novosibirsk. 1968, p. 103.

6 Ibid., p. 132.

page 152

readers, the book notes, were attracted by the history of virgin land development, issues of cultural construction in the village, and the financial situation of rural workers.

When describing the literature on the history of the Siberian countryside in recent years, the authors note that the events of the 60s-the first half of the 70s are still devoted to isolated works (pp. 376-377), but Siberian historians are studying a new stage in the development of agriculture, which was initiated by the decisions of the March (1965) Plenum of the Central Committee The CPSU. The study of the current stage of agricultural development, as noted in the monograph, has not only scientific, cognitive, but also practical significance. Analysis of the nature and causes of rural migration, forms of moral and material incentives for agricultural workers, and other issues helps in the search for measures to further boost agriculture.

At the same time, the authors for some reason do not consider 1950, which ends the fourth five-year plan, to be a significant milestone in the development of Siberian agriculture, describing the entire eight-year period (1946-1953) as a time of "restoring agricultural production weakened by the war and preparing measures for its further rapid development in subsequent years" (p. 330).. Meanwhile, all the indicators show that the workers of the Siberian countryside restored agricultural production in a short time, and the authors of the History of Siberia are right when they claim that in all the main branches of agriculture "the pre-war level was reached and exceeded by 1950." 7 Of course, it took a longer period of time to fully overcome the severe consequences of the war, but agricultural production was restored by 1950, and this is a crucial indicator for the periodization of agricultural recovery and development.

The literature on the history of the village in the 1950s needs a more detailed analysis. Almost the bulk of these works were written after the events, without attracting a sufficient amount of materials that had not yet been deposited in the archives. And a large number of studies on this period do not give sufficient grounds to consider it, as the authors do, the most successful in terms of the degree of study (p.359).

On pages 388-389, the authors argue that the allocation of the main class-determining feature in the study of the social appearance of the collective farm peasantry at the present stage is illegal. We can hardly agree with this. The relations of ownership, the relation to the means of production - this is the main class-defining feature. The rejection of it, as it has been repeatedly noted in the literature, often leads to erroneous conclusions about the absence of differences between the working class and the peasantry, about the elimination of classes already at the present stage of development of Soviet society.

In the last chapters, both historical and economic literature are subjected to historiographical analysis together. This had to be discussed somehow.

Authors do not always manage to focus their attention on the literature on the history of the peasantry; they often stray to the historiography of Siberian agriculture as a whole. It is a pity that the book, like most other works on historiography, is not provided with either personal or bibliographic indexes.

Despite the shortcomings in the book, the first experience of preparing a generalizing work on the historiography of the Siberian peasantry can be considered a success. The monograph will be of great help to all students of the agricultural history of the USSR.

7 "History of Siberia", Vol. V. L. 1969, p. 211.

page 153

Permanent link to this publication: