![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper presents insights from research conducted on the transition from the traditional peasant lifestyle to that of the “modern cooperative”. Based on archival research and oral history interviews, the authors focus on the effects on peasant women’s lives of socialist collective farms as new compulsory workplaces. The investigated villages (Mezőkaszony and Mihálygerge) are populated by ethnic Hungarians but are situated in two countries: Hungary and the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the challenges that women faced with the creation of the collective farm system were similar. Using comparative micro-level analysis, the authors examine societal change and changes in family life from the point of view of women as collective farms were created and developed. In particular, they reveal the initial employment experiences of village women after the collective farms were formed and explore their changing life strategies as they adapted to the new agricultural system.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. See more on the definition and goals of comparison in the introductory part of the following volume: (Haupt and Kocka Citation2009).
2. For sociological and anthropological literature on collectivization, see Asztalos Morell Citation1999; (Lampland Citation1995); (Swain Citation1985). For the Hungarian case, the resource-base was, on the one hand, the minutes of leading bodies of the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party and, on the other, documents from the Agriculture Department of its party centre. Materials were collected in Mihálygerge from the village party organization, the executive committee of the local council and the remaining documents of the cooperative. The Transcarpathian sources comprised the documents of the Mezőkaszony Engels kolkhoz in the Transcarpathian Regional State Archives. An important part of the research was conducting interviews, which were mainly thematic.
3. The name of the region changes with politics. For peoples east of the Carpathians (Russians and Ukrainians), it is Transcarpathia, while for peoples west of the Carpathians (Czechs and Hungarians) it is Subcarpathia. Between the wars, when the area was part of Czechoslovakia, it was Subcarpathian Ruthenia; now it is the Transcarpathian region of Ukraine. In Ukrainian, the village name is Koson, but the Hungarian name is used here because of the ethnicity of the village population.
4. (Vehes et al. Citation2011), 133. It should be noted that in areas incorporated into the Soviet Union itself nationalization of the land was seen as a precondition for collectivization. In the “Popular Democracies” of Eastern Europe this was not the case: land, for the most part, remained nominally in the hands of the peasants who joined the collective farms.
5. Central to the specialist works and studies assessing the history of Transcarpathia under Soviet rule are the economic and social situation of the region, the process of collectivization and the deportations. Significant works on the history of the region include Fedinec and Vehes, 2010.; (Vehes et al. Citation2011). which dates the most significant events of the region; and the work of the historical pubicist (Csanádi Citation2004). For collectivization, see (Marples Citation1992), 112–114.
6. According to a decree issued on 13 November 1944, Hungarian and German men aged between 18 and 50, often between 18 and 60, were taken to Staryi Sambir and Novii Sambir for a “three day”-long reconstruction work. In Hungarian-speaking regions it is referred to as “malenkij robot”, a corruption of the Russian “malenkaya robota” meaning “little work”. The population of Transcarpathia had reached 853,949 in 1941, of which the Hungarian minority made up 27.4%. As a result of the deportation of men of Hungarian ethnicity in 1944 and earlier resettlements in the face of the Soviet advance as well as the deportation of the Jews and other impact of war, the population fell significantly to 758,700 and the share of Hungarians fell even more dramatically to 8.7%. See Molnár D. Citation2018, 97‒101.
7. Fabrichno-zavodskoye obucheniye, plant-factory education.
8. The cooperatives in the 1960s operated on the basis of the equipment and horsepower that members brought into the farms. Mechanization only affected ploughing, sowing and harvesting grain.
9. Database on “malenkii robot” of the Ferenc Rákóczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian High School. (12 April 2021) https://kmf.uz.ua/mr/4_nevek_bereg.html#mezokaszony
10. Kárpátaljai Területi Állami Levéltár (Transcarpathian Regional State Archives, hereafter KTÁL) Mezőkaszonyi kolhoz iratai: Fond P-1909, opisz 1., od. zb. 1., 3.
11. KTÁL: Fond P-1909, opisz 1., od. zb. 1, 3.
12. This kolkhoz was much smaller, poorer and economically less developed, requiring a transfer of funds from Mezőkaszony, which was not appreciated. The kolkhoz covered 2402 hectares, of which 1382 was arable, 132 hectares vineyards, 150 hectares grazing, and 112 hectares. As draught animals it had 119 oxen and 131 horses.
13. From 1949 it had a contract with the Leningrad champagne factory which purchased 25% of its grapes. Its grape production compensated for loss-making collective farming.
14. This phenomenon is termed by Andrea Pető for example as “matriarchy born of necessity”. (Pető Citation2000).
15. Interview with retired kolkhoz member SE, 16 April 2012.
16. Interview with retired kolkhoz member SE,16 April 2012.
17. KTÁL: Fond P-1909, opisz 1., od. zb. 5, 9.
18. Interview with retired kolkhoz member T. J. 14 August 2017.
19. KTÁL: Fond P-1909, opisz 1., od. zb. 5, 29.
20. KTÁL: Fond P-1909, opisz 18., od. zb. 3, 12.
21. Interview with retired kolkhoz member A.I., 18 April 2012.
22. Interview with retired kolkhoz member S.E., 16 April 2012.
23. Interview with retired kolkhoz member G.V., 27 August 2017.
24. Interview with retired kolkhoz member A.I., 18 April 2012
25. For example, in 1949 for a month a dairy maid was recorded three work days for milking and two days for treating the milk making five days. (KTÁL: Fond P-1909, opisz 18., od. zb. 4, 4.)
26. The premium went to groups that had overfulfilled their plan from the money from the harvest that remained after compulsory deliveries.
27. Interview with retired kolkhoz member A.I., 18 April 2012.
28. Interview with retired kolkhoz member G.V., 27 August 2017.
29. Interview with retired kolkhoz member A.I., 20 March 2012.
30. Interview with retired kolkhoz member B.I.,12 August 2020.
31. For example, the value of the labour day was 1.54 roubles in 1966 and 2.2 roubles in 1969. It clearly made sense to travel to the inner regions for work. In the Vologda region of Russia, for example, 300 roubles a month could be earned in forestry plantation, five times more than on an average Carpathian kolkhoz. (Oficinszkij Citation2010d), 281.
32. Interview with B.J., retired collective farm member, 8 September 2012.
33. KTÁL: Fond P-1909, opisz 1., od. zb. 17, 12.
34. The population was 100% Roman Catholic. (Szomszéd Citation2005), 9–11.
35. Using the standard historical Hungarian measure of land quality, the “golden crown” value of land in Nógrád county was 5.91 per “cadastral hold”, while the national average was 9.38. Mezőgazdasági Statisztikai Adatgyűjtemény, 1870–1970. Földterület II. Megyei adatok. KSH, Bp., Citation1971. 40., 438.
36. “Kétlaki” is often translated as “commuter” or “commuting worker” but this loses much of its force which suggests living in two worlds, the peasant world and the world of industry. Here the original Hungarian will be retained.
37. In Hungary the “cadastral hold” (0.57 hectares) was used as the measure of land until 1973. This paper expresses holdings in hectares to facilitate comparison with Transcarpathia.
38. Three of the five men made up the collective farm leadership – chairman, head of production and party secretary, all from landless families. In these early years the collectives were technically “groups” within the “land-cultivating cooperatives” established to help the beneficiaries of the 1945 land reform.
39. The membership list records a household plot size for every member of 0.57 hectares, which is of interest because the legislation in force at the time set a maximum of a half to three-quarters of that amount. 205/1950. (VIII. 1.) M.T. sz. rendelet az önálló termelőszövetkezetek és a termelőszövetkezeti csoportok működési szabályzatának módosításáról. TRHGY 1950, 385–387.
40. The farm started with livestock only in 1955when cowsheds had been built.
41. MNL NML 26. f. 2. cs. 1948–55. 10. ő. e. Pártalapszervezetek titkárainak jelentései a pártépítőmunka tapasztalatairól.
42. MNL NML XXIII. 774/a Mihálygerge Községi Közös Tanács iratai. Tanácsülési jegyzőkönyvek, 1950–1954.
43. Interview with V. J, 4 February 2013.
44. Interview with F.J. 5 July 2013.
45. MNL NML XXIII. 774/a Mihálygerge Községi Közös Tanács iratai. Tanácsülési jegyzőkönyvek,1954–1957.
46. MNL NML XXIII. 774/a Mihálygerge Községi Közös Tanács iratai. Tanácsülési jegyzőkönyvek,1954–1957.
47. 366 ha was arable and 337 ha forest, the rest meadow and pasture. The cooperative had the biggest forest area of the district. MNL NML XXX. 681.b. A mihálygergei II. Rákóczi Ferenc Mgtsz iratai.
48. It is of interest that the census records the assisting family members of independent farmers and kétlaki separately. There were 45 of the former and 40 of the latter in the village.
49. MNL NML XXIII. 774/a Mihálygerge Községi Közös Tanács iratai. Tanácsülési jegyzőkönyvek,1961–1965.
50. MNL NML XXX. 681.b. A mihálygergei II. Rákóczi Ferenc Mgtsz iratai. Zárszámadási jegyzőkönyvek, 1962. február 2, 1963. január 31.
51. Interview with Mrs F. L. retired cooperative member, 10 January 2012.
52. MNL NML XXX. 681.b. A mihálygergei II. Rákóczi Ferenc Mgtsz iratai. Vezetőségi ülések jegyzőkönyvei, 1961–1965.
53. Interviews with Mrs V. J. and Mrs F.J. 13 June 2011.
54. Interview with Mrs K.E. retired cooperative member 28 September 2014.
55. MNL M-KS-288. f. 28/1961/10. ő. e.; 28/1962/7., 8., 9. ő. e.; 28/1963/11., 12. ő. e.
56. Interview with Mrs M.Z. retired cooperative member 27 September 2014.
57. At this time people prepared many sorts of potato dish in northern Hungary.
58. Work contracts and agreements of this type only remain from the second half of the 1960s in the documents of the Béke Cooperative. MNL NML 26. f. 4. cs. 61. ő. e.
59. MNL NML XXXV. 51. 48. ő. e.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Alexandra Bodnár
Alexandra Bodnar graduated from the Ferenc Rakóczi II. Transacarpathian Hungarian Institute (Ukraine). She finished her Phd studies in the Modern Hungarian History Department at Loránd Eötvös University (ELTE) (Hungary) in 2020. Her research focuses on the kolkhoz system and women's history in Transcarpathia.
Zsuzsanna Varga
Zsuzsanna Varga’s main field of research is the history of socialist agriculture in Hungary. She received her PhD in 1998 and in 2015 was awarded the title Doctor of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. She is currently Head of the Modern Hungarian History Department at Eötvös Loránd University (Budapest). She is a founding member of the European Rural History Organisation and currently acts as its Vice-President. She has authored over 120 publications, including five monographs and seven edited collections. Her latest monograph was published in the Harvard Cold War Studies Book Series: The Hungarian Agricultural Miracle? Sovietization and Americanization in a Communist Country (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021).