The collectivization of agriculture stabilized by the time of the sixteenth party congress at a level that greatly exceeds the projections of the five-year plan.

During the spring sowing campaign, according to the data, the collective farms:

The collective farms have fulfilled their plan by 94.5 percent (as of 15 June) and now account for about 40 percent of the entire sown area.

Of the 32.2 million hectares of collective-farm sown area, the machine and tractor stations of the Traktorotsentr and grain cooperative associations have sown 4.7 million hectares, which makes about 15 [percent] of the entire collective sown area.

The growth of collective farms was accompanied by their significant quantitative growth.

The results of collectivization by area show the rate and proportion of collectivization to be higher in the main [grain] producing areas than in the [grain] consuming areas.

In the recorded areas, the level of collectivization is apparent in the following table:

The rate [in the growth] of the collective-farm movement in 1930 sharply increased, exceeding the rates of past years by many times. In one year only, the number of poor and middle peasant farms in collective farms has increased 7.7 times for the Northern Caucasus; 5.2 times for Middle Volga; 5.9 times for Lower Volga; 4.7 times for the Central Black Earth Oblast; 6.9 times for Ukraine; 2.8 times for Crimea; 4 times for the Moscow Oblast. […]

The qualitative growth of collective farms reveals itself in a fundamental shift in the types of collective farms, which is seen in the data below [see table on p. 329].

First of all, it is necessary to note the fundamental shift in the types of collective farms in 1929–30 [economic year]. Whereas the share of agricultural artels did not show a tendency to increase in previous years, in 1930 in all raions except Ukraine the overwhelming majority of collective farms turned into artels (not less than 90 percent of the total collectivized sown area; not less than 86 percent of the total number of collectivized farms). All areas showed a decrease

“Completely” is used in the original, evidently by mistake.

of proportionate shares of communes in the collective crop area. In regard to land cultivation associations, everywhere except for the Ukraine their proportionate share fell drastically—over 10 times. In Ukraine, the proportionate share of land cultivation associations decreased only from 71.4 percent to 34.6 percent, that is, approximately two times. In absolute figures, in numbers of farms and the amount of sown area, land cultivation associations have obviously grown in Ukraine, whereas in other areas they declined in absolute figures as well. In some areas (for example, Lower Volga), we have almost no land cultivation associations. This situation cannot be considered normal when the absolutely correct thesis about the artel as the main form of the collective-farm movement is understood, in the present stage, as leaving no place at all for land cultivation associations. The insufficient use of land cultivation associations leads to the narrowing of the collective-farm movement even in such areas as Lower Volga. It goes without saying that in other areas, such as, for example, Moscow Oblast, where the proportionate share of land cultivation associations fell from 53 percent to 6 percent and their numbers decreased 3.5 times compared to the last year, this [trend] shows a rather weak collectivization effort and mistakes made while carrying out collectivization.

The struggle for large-scale socialization of production revealed itself in the considerable enlargement of collective farms [see table on p. 331].

Bearing in mind the state of accounts on collective farms, the quality of accounting, differences in the evaluations of socialized tools and means of production in the past years and in the current year, it is necessary to say that the value of collectivized funds is probably somewhat underrepresented [in the table].

The enlargement of collective farms is taking place according to all indicators.

Two areas stand out for the large size of their collective farms: Northern Caucasus and especially Lower Volga. […]

All over the Union, 34.3 percent of administrative raions have a collectivization rate higher than the average Union rate, that is, over 25 percent.

About 400 administrative raions, that is, 13 percent of the total number, have a collectivization rate above 50 percent. The main grain-producing areas have an even greater rate of collectivization. Thus, for example, in the Northern Caucasus, as the table shows, about 32 percent [sic] of administrative raions have a collectivization rate above 75 percent, while the average krai rate is only 55.2 percent. In the Lower Volga, about 28 percent of administrative raions have a collectivization rate above 50 percent, while the oblast average is 34.8 percent.

Collectivization rates above 75 percent in a raion fundamentally change the social and economic configuration of a raion. In the raions of wholesale collectivization, there are currently: [see table on p. 332].

This clearly expressed strengthening of collective farms took place, mainly, on the basis of the collectivization of tools and the means of production of poor and middle peasants. The process of socialization may be characterized by the following data: [see table on p. 333].

Due to the fact that the agricultural artel is the prevalent type of collective farm, we see considerable socialization of agricultural implements, reaching 100 percent in regard to improved agricultural tools and the means of production.

Along with the socialization of agricultural implements, in 1930 we have had a drastic increase in the socialization of draft animals as well. The degree of socialization reached in this respect is the highest, covering close to 100 percent of collective farms. The socialization of sown area lags somewhat behind the socialization of draft animals, which is explained mainly by the fact that the sown area figures include the 1929 winter sowing when the degree of collectivization was not as high. Undoubtedly, we have large-scale socialization of land holdings. […]

The production and technical base of the collective-farm movement has not yet moved far ahead of peasant technology, although a swift process of tractorization of agriculture and the influx of new machinery to agriculture are taking place. Overwhelmingly, it [the production and technology base] consists of, so far, collectivized livestock and peasant implements. All over the Union, as noted above, 3,996.4 thousand units of draft animals have been socialized; the number of tractors that serviced collective farms in the current year equaled 90,000 conventional units. In the recorded areas, the number of draft animals on collective farms are seen in the following table:

The data [in the table on p. 334]… shows a drastic increase in the rate of socialization of draft animals on collective farms.

Degree of Socialization within Collective Farms (percent of collectivized property from the total property including the collective farmers' individual property)

The tractor and machine base of collective farms at the time of recording is characterized by the following data: [see table on p. 335].

A fairly large percentage of collective farms have tractors and traction engines; the number of collective farms with harvesters and threshers is even greater. From this table it follows that from one-tenth to one-fifth of the tractor park did not work in the sowing campaign. The insufficient organization of the tractor force, its scattering, wear and tear, etc.—all this revealed itself in a large percentage of idled tractors.

The mechanical propulsion force (tractors and traction engines) makes up the following share of the entire balance of collective-farm propulsion force […]:

Tractors and traction engines already comprise approximately one-tenth of the entire collective-farm propulsion force.

Speaking of the mechanical power base of collective farms, it is also necessary here to note the enormous role of the MTS [machine and tractor stations] as the best organizational form for the use of the mechanical power base, providing an opportunity for its increased centralization and fullest utilization in production. It was in 1930 that the construction of the MTS under both Traktorotsentr and the Grain Cooperative [Network] developed on a vast scale.

The data below shows the number of organized MTS and their work.

Notes from the original document indicate that the data on the number of machines and tractor stations and on crop area, spring 1930, thousands of hectors, are for 15 June, with the exception of Khlebotsentr's data which is from 1 June.

In the current spring sowing campaign, the MTS and cluster associations in recorded areas have serviced collective farms and performed work in the following amounts:

[…] Almost one-third of all collective farms are linked with the MTS and cluster production associations, and in three areas we have an increase in the proportionate share of collective farms linked with an MTS organized after the last year's winter sowing campaign. The MTS construction that widely developed precisely in 1929–30 has thus been a powerful factor conditioning the growth of collective farms. […]