Frunze. 1969. 723 pages. The print run is 1000. Price 2 rubles. 21 kopecks.

The reviewed monograph by V. P. Sherstobitov is devoted to the generalizing theme of the great transformative influence of Lenin's ideas on the fate of the peasantry of the Soviet East. The author continues and develops in it the provisions set out in his previous book1, and at the same time introduces a lot of new things to the coverage of the experience of socialist construction in the village, Kyshtak and the resettlement village of Kyrgyzstan. The coverage of these issues is of serious scientific importance, since the experience of socio-cultural development of the national peasantry of the Central Asian republics based on Lenin's doctrine of the possibility of transition to socialism, bypassing capitalism, in its main features had much in common, the historical destinies of the peasantry coincided, and the methods of transformation were of the same type or similar in character2 .

The book opens with a description of Lenin's views on the peasantry as a class in general, on the national peasantry of the eastern suburbs of the Russian Empire in particular, on the agrarian question and ways to resolve it in Central Asia; Lenin's provisions on the leading role of the working class in eliminating the colonial legacy in land relations and remaking the pre-capitalist structure that prevailed in the national village of the Soviet Union are presented. For example, on the union of the entire Russian working class (let us emphasize this) with the national working peasantry in the transition period to socialism.

The author examines in detail the differences in the forms of the union of workers and peasants (using the example of Kyrgyzstan) during the periods of war communism and the new economic policy, especially on the verge of transition from one stage to another. He puts forward the most interesting problem of V. I. Lenin's formulation of the question of the continuity of socio-cultural transformations in the pre-capitalist environment, of the organic connection of these transformations with the political organization of the national, in this case Kyrgyz, peasantry, with the growth of its class consciousness, the Sovietization of villages and Kyshtaks. Lenin's conviction in the revolutionary possibilities of the national peasantry is rightly emphasized, while at the same time being sensitive and cautious in their attitude to it, flexible in tactics, and in cases where this is necessary, compliant with firm consideration of the level of their socio-political development and the alignment of class forces, the ability to wait for the differentiation of so-called "national interests" and their subordination to class ones.

The most important feature of the monograph is its richness in typical and historically significant facts. The reliability of the concrete historical material introduced into science is beyond doubt.

A meaningful overview of the types of farms that were characterized by zonal differences is provided-

1 V. P. Sherstobitov. New economic policy in Kyrgyzstan. Frunze. 1964.

2 See R. H. Aminov. Agrarian transformations in Uzbekistan on the eve of complete collectivization (1925-1929). Tashkent, 1969; " Essay on the history of collective farm construction in Tajikistan (1917-1965)". Edited by K. P. Marsakov. Dushanbe, 1968.

page 159

social structure of the rural population of pre-revolutionary Kyrgyzstan, forms and norms of exploitation in villages and villages (with the division into old-timers and newcomers). V. P. Sherstobitov's assessment of the institutions of chayrikerstvo and mardikerstvo, identification of the system of lease relations, processes of impoverishment and, as the author says, proletarianization (although more precisely, pauperization) of the peasantry is important.

The book convincingly reveals the position on the full applicability of Lenin's decree on land to the specific conditions of Kyrgyzstan, the fact that it met the fundamental interests of both the Kyrgyz and the displaced peasantry. In our opinion, the author correctly expressed the opinion about the almost complete absence of kombeds in nomadic and semi-nomadic villages not only in the second half of 1918, but also in subsequent years. V. P. Sherstobitov explains the reasons why kombeds could not be distributed here (pp. 121-122). The author shows the vitality of the broader social unions of labor dehkans (later Koshchi unions) that operated in Turkestan after the transition to NEP and the beginning of the elimination of actual inequality in land use (the land and water reform of 1921-1922). The book examines the peculiarities of the policy of war communism, the difficulties of its implementation, and the expediency of adapting it changes in the economic and political situation in Kyrgyzstan, the transition from food procurement to various forms of natural grain service, five or ten percent deductions from the harvest, etc. D., the facts about free trade and even speculation in local markets during the civil war are accurately noted.

Just as succinctly and fully the book shows the historical significance of the new economic policy for the fate of the peasantry of Kyrgyzstan, for the transformation of the most complex binding of pre-capitalist, patriarchal, small-scale and private capitalist ways on the basis of socialism. Interesting are the responses of the working peasantry to the transition to NEP, information about the amount of economic measures of the Soviet state that contributed to the restoration of agricultural production (irrigation, credit, agro-and zoo points, inventory supply, social orientation of the tax system, land management in all its forms). - The author analyzes the means by which the party and the Soviets stimulated the settling of Kyrgyz nomadic and semi-nomadic farms, and notes the social orientation of this process, which is typical not only for the Kyrgyz village, but also for the Kazakh village - first of all, the settling of the poor; it is no coincidence that documents of that era often called settling "opeshivanie". We have not forgotten such a special (also, by the way, typical for Kyrgyzstan and south-east Kazakhstan) problem as the placement of refugees-participants of the 1916 uprising, which was solved until the mid-20s.

The questions of the conditionality of the land reform of 1927-1928, its main results, and the high activity of the peasantry are elaborated in detail and in depth. In connection with the reform, as well as all the extraordinary and ordinary land management measures that preceded it, perhaps for the first time in the historiography of Kyrgyzstan, the dynamics of the social structure of the village, kyshtak and the resettlement village during the 20s is so thoroughly covered: it is the dynamics, sometimes even by year, with the obligatory identification of special features of the economy and social relations of or another area. This advantage of the monograph is worth highlighting, because often in the historical literature, including Central Asian, the factor of differences between the economy and social structure is not sufficiently taken into account. The result is a leveled," average " picture that does not reflect reality, when the class belonging of a nomadic pastoralist is judged by the security of his crops, and a cotton farmer-by the security of cattle. Yandex. Direct Accounting Sherstobit analysis of real differences in the types of farming allowed us to clearly trace the course of middling of the Kyrgyz village and Kyshtak, its slowness and show why this slowness was natural, moreover, justified.

The author assesses the agrarian transformations of the 1920s in the Soviet East as socialist. We stand on a different point of view, but we will not expand the argument "for" and "against": the issue has been widely discussed, and the discussion has already given much to science. But regardless of the discussion, it should be noted that the book specifically showed how gradually, but steadily, the formation and strengthening of the socialist way of life in Kyrgyzstan's agriculture went on -

page 160

from the simplest cooperative forms to production, to collective farms, how cooperative construction adapted to the way of life of the village and Kyshtak, how the state supported the germs of socialism in the agriculture of a backward agrarian region. Hence the result - in 1929 there were 535 collective farms in Kyrgyzstan, which united 12,592 farms, the socialist sector owned 28.4% of the sown area.

The book's presentation of the question of peasant Soviets adapted to pre-capitalist social institutions as a form of union between the Russian working class and the national working peasantry deserves a positive assessment. At the same time, the author points out such characteristic features of the Soviet construction in the village and the conditions in which it took place, as weak political differentiation in the village environment, the influence of the Bais-Manap elite and Muslim clergy, patriarchal-feudal and tribal traditions, residual phenomena of distrust in interethnic relations, the expediency of temporarily attracting relatively progressive elements from different ethnic groups to the Soviets. social alien environment, tribal struggle as a kind of class struggle in elections to Councils, the need to create and support such a form as jailon Councils. At the same time, such well-known factors of increasing the political activity of the peasantry as non-party peasant conferences, the promotion of farm labourers, poor and middle peasants to leadership work in the Soviets, the introduction of office work in the Kyrgyz language by the Soviets, the rooting of the Soviet apparatus, etc. are also shown. A special section of the monograph is devoted to special measures taken by the party and the state to liberate the Kyrgyz woman.

It is significant that the book does not oppose the party's policy of reviving the Soviets, proclaimed by the October (1924) Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), to the slogan of Sovietization of the Kyrgyz village, and correctly states that the latter, in fact, was a refraction of the party line in relation to the specific situation in the village.

The book covers issues of cultural construction in rural areas of Kyrgyzstan quite briefly in comparison with others. But even here, I think, the desire of the masses for enlightenment and culture is clearly shown, as well as the possibility and first results of assimilation of the socialist ideology by the peasantry of the Kyrgyz Republic. The latter point is very important, since it is often ignored in the literature, and all channels of political and cultural education in the 1920s are reduced to schools and educational programs.

The whole book is characterized by attention to the factors of the multinational nature of the Kyrgyz peasantry, the elimination of interethnic contradictions generated by the colonialist policy of tsarism, the Baisk-Kulak intrigues, and the formation and strengthening of friendship between working peasants of different nationalities-Kyrgyz, Russians, Ukrainians, Uighurs, Dungans, etc.

The author, therefore, set and solved many problems. At the same time - and this is considered a very valuable quality of the book - it calls for an argument, to clarify the questions that still remain poorly understood. We will briefly discuss some of them.

As already mentioned, the author clearly showed the peculiarities of the policy of war communism in Kyrgyzstan, the very limited nature of the grain monopoly and surplus procurement, and in many respects correctly explained why this happened. But at the same time, as it seems to us, he draws not entirely justified conclusions: "In Turkestan in 1918-1920 there was actually a food tax, not a surplus payment" (p. 168), "the economic, most profound interests of the peasantry, as a petty-bourgeois mass, were satisfied in Kirghizia more fully than in the Center... the military-political alliance of the working class of Russia with the peasantry of Kyrgyzstan was supplemented already in 1918-1920. the Economic union" (p. 169); "since the "military-communist" principles were instilled relatively weakly here, the retreat was less pronounced than in the Center, resulting in the transition to free trade and stable monetary mutual settlements" (p.182). If we follow the above, we may get the impression that in Kyrgyzstan in 1918 - 1920, in fact, the NEP was operating. In real life, I think, it was different. The situation of the civil war really did not make it possible to introduce real surplus development in Kyrgyzstan, for example, although attempts in this direction were systematically made and this is described in the book. But is it really possible to assess what was not carried out due primarily to the weakness of the local party and Soviet bodies and the complexity of the situation as a food tax and before-

page 161

filling the military-political union of workers and peasants with an economic union? And the fact that the peasantry of Kirghizia, as a result of the civil war, was twice temporarily cut off from Soviet Russia and could receive almost nothing from the working class in the form of manufactured goods - is this evidence in favor of the economic union? We should add that the food tax is qualitatively different from the five percent deductions of the civil war period, that the rural economy was basically natural, that the rural population was dominated by both absolutely and relatively poor people, and that in the south of Kyrgyzstan there was a counter-revolutionary Basmach movement. Hence, I think, it follows that in relation to the era of the civil war, it is too early to talk about the food tax in Kyrgyzstan, and especially about the addition of an economic one to the military-political union of workers and peasants. And it is no coincidence that the NEP (and its first, initial element was the food tax) in Kyrgyzstan, as in all of Central Asia, was implemented more difficult than in the center. It is not by chance that at the Tenth Congress of the RCP (b) the question of NEP was discussed together with the national question, and the tasks of an alliance between the working class and the peasantry of the national suburbs were very acute and unsolved.

The author highlights the problem of the correlation of ways of life in agriculture in Kyrgyzstan, but there are also issues that, as it seems to us, need further research. It is probably necessary to define the concept of "economic structure" more precisely. Should this concept include the sum of certain production relations and market relations, or something else and what exactly? When V. I. Lenin spoke of the five ways of life at the beginning of the transition period, he obviously did not believe that these ways exhausted the system of economic life of the Soviet country at that time. And also: does the concept of "patriarchal way of life" include the Manaps, Bais, and poor people of the Kyrgyz village?

It seems very promising (also in continuation of the ideas expressed in the monograph) to study the topic "politics of class stratification" in the national village (as this policy was called in the documents of the 20s). The fact is that in the literature ,the "policy of class stratification" is sometimes understood literally, almost as a policy that artificially stratified the population of the village, aul and Kyshtak into polar social groups. But this was not necessary, because there were polar groups. So, obviously, we are talking about a policy designed to raise the class consciousness of the poor of the national village, to make them aware of the opposition of their interests to the interests of the Bais and Manaps.

There is comparatively little research (and consequently less development in the book) on the specifics of party building directly in the village: on the benefits for the national working peasantry when joining the party (length of service, number of recommended members), on the fact of admitting Muslim believers to the party, etc. who knew capitalism. Perhaps it would be correct to say directly, following Lenin's well-known position, about introducing socialist consciousness from outside. After all, this would also correspond to the objective course of history and would not in the least detract from the positive assessment of the revolutionary capabilities of the national peasantry.

The author, in our opinion, postulates the situation too categorically: "Patriarchal-feudal Turkestan, since the October Revolution, has immediately entered the path of socialism, bypassing the bourgeois-democratic stage" (p. 91). Indeed, there was no such stage in Turkestan. But in patriarchal-feudal Turkestan, was it really not necessary to solve any problems of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, even if only in passing?

The reader may involuntarily ask: did the author do the right thing by chronologically limiting the study to the period - October 1917-1929? The question is natural, because after 1929 there were even more dramatic, and it is no exaggeration to say gigantic, changes in the life of the Kyrgyz peasantry. Nevertheless, it seems that such a limitation of the research scope is justified.

V. P. Sherstobitov's book is undoubtedly a major and original contribution to the development of an important topic, which has a completely independent scientific significance.

page 162

Permanent link to this publication: