>>2920975>>2921323I'm through 2 chapters of the second volume, and the word "tome" is apt. I will not be continuing, since it's not befitting of a novice to be so acquainted with this dry economic history. Here is my own summary:
Chapter 1 deals in the general situation of the kolkhozy, or the collective farm, which began to develop in 1925, in smaller form (Ch. 1C), but which by 1930 had grown in size to encompass dozens of households. By 1930, there were 113,000 kolkhozy in the USSR - jumping from only 57,000 in 1929 (Ch. 2), expropriating hundreds of thousands of kulaks (Ch. 1A); a struggle notoriously culminating in the Holodomor (1932-3), and so the class struggle between peasant and state ended. The drive for collectivisation was simultaneous of the application of "laws of industry" to all sectors (Ch. 1A), necessarily meaning centralising authority in line with investment (e.g. mechanisation). It was suggested in November 1929 that the kolkhozy be managed in the style of the state-owned sovkhozy, or "grain factory" (Ch. 1A), but this was too costly. Along with the kolkhozy was their union in the kolkhozsoyuzy, which was sought to be joined with the agricultural cooperatives, or the koopsoyuzy, further centralising authority. Enthusiasm for the kolkhozy displaced the traditional power centres of mir and skhod, and even overshadowed the soviets - along with intrusive plenipotentiaries. Major features of the kolkhoz system established in 1929-30 endured until Stalin's death, and for some time after it (Ch. 1C). So, the basis of collectivisation was firmly planted in this era.
Chapter 2 deals with Machine-Tractor Stations (MTS). In terms of ownership, by Spring 1929, the sovkhozy only possessed 100 tractors, while large 147 kolkhoz owned 800 tractors, and 57,000 small kolkhoz owned majority of the 20,000 available tractors. By October 1929, no tractors remained in personal possession. Technology for agriculture was suggested to be joined in a "unified organisational centre" to provide investments to places most requiring it, and so on. Markevich rejected a policy resuscitated by Khrushchev 30 years later, that each kolkhoz-village should possess its own tractors, and so insisted upon MTS monopoly. For this, representatives of the MTS would supervise production performed from the hire of machines; the peasants would then pay out a charge per hectare - an example is from Shevchenko, where a village would pay up to 1/3 of its harvest to the MTS, which thus induced incentives for more produce. Markevich sought to separate tractors from kolkhozy by exclusive state monopoly, which was criticised by many, seeing how independent contracts were already given from people. After a lot of intense detail, we see that from January to July 1930, kolkhozy no longer simply collectivised harvests, but all "commodity branches of agriculture" including draught animals and implements. With this too, all MTS were divorced from cooperative control, and instead deferred to the state and kolkhozy - which also acted as a rival to local and soviet powers, implicitly on behalf of state interests. By September 1930, the Traktorotsentr took over all cooperative MTS.
From what I gather in this process of collectivisation, the cooperatives were an obstacle which was defeated, and as Davies adds, there were common grievances by inefficiencies of the MTS system, such as 40% of all labour being repair of tractors. As I put it in my review, collectivisation has its dekulakisation during 1932-3, momentous of these earlier steps in the five year plan. The very short preface also gives a good picture of it:
<The collective farmers were remunerated for their work on the collective lands-in principle, though not yet in practice-in 'labour days'; these were proportionate to the quantity and quality of work, though they were paid only after the harvest, by sharing out what remained after state and collective needs were satisfied. In this compromise between state and peasant interests, the state predominated, by its power and its material advantages. The collective product was firmly con-trolled by state collection agencies, and, after a lengthy controversy, available tractors and other modern machinery were transferred to state-owned Machine-Tractor Stations, each of which served and controlled a number of kolkhozy.Here, we see a class struggle at work, between bureau and peasant.