The construction of socialism in the USSR was the first experience in history of a radical transformation of the relations between town and country that developed under feudalism and capitalism. In the course of the conscious organizational activities of the Communist Party and the Soviet State aimed at eliminating the opposition between town and country, methods of regulating their relations were developed and tested in practice in order to bring together and harmonize the interests of the urban and rural strata of the working population. Studying the history of the transition period from this point of view is relevant in modern conditions, when the Soviet people, under the leadership of the Communist Party, are successfully implementing the policy of further rapprochement between the city and the countryside, erasing significant differences between them. Of particular interest in this regard is the reconstruction period (1921-1925), marked by an intensive restructuring of relations between the city and the countryside in connection with the transition to peaceful economic construction in the context of a new economic policy and the continuation of the formation of a new system of these relations, which began in October 1917, based on the laws of the transition period as a whole.
During the years of the revolution and the civil War, the old system of connections between the city and the countryside that had developed under capitalism was destroyed, although not completely. At the same time, what was new in the relations between town and country, which were established under the influence of revolutionary transformations, turned out to be largely deformed with the introduction of "war communism", which was also a consequence of the war. In the current situation, during the transition to peaceful economic construction, it was necessary to largely redefine the methods and levers of regulating relations between town and country that were applicable under the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was necessary not only to test them, but also to create a system that would solve an increasingly wide range of problems: from overcoming the economic devastation at the beginning of the period to regulating the socio-economic development of cities and villages in the conditions of restored productive forces and further movement along the path of building socialism.
The scientific basis for the formation of such a system was the study of the social interests of the city and village. Due to the peculiarities of the class structure of society at that time, the spectrum of their interests was very diverse: from proletarian-hired workers of private enterprises in the city and countryside to bourgeois, represented by nepmans, kulaks. The interests of the middle strata played a major role: petty-bourgeois producers-peasants, handicraftsmen, artisans, small merchants. The fact that building a socialist system is regulated by-
page 34
Even in the presence of a number of old, bourgeois ties, this combination determined not only the struggle between them on the principle of "who - whom", but also formed the main content of the period under consideration as a whole. The reconstruction period laid the foundations of a socialist mechanism for regulating relations between town and country. At this stage, the main elements of the future system were identified, which was one of the main tasks of the transition period and the prerequisites for real socialism.
The relationship between the city and the countryside is a multi-faceted problem. Its study involves identifying the interrelation of a complex set of issues of social development: socio-economic, political, political-administrative, cultural, national relations, changes in the social structure of society, socio-settlement and demographic factors, etc. Many of these aspects are reflected in the literature devoted to the period of economic recovery .1 The complex of problems that characterize the basic principles of the proletarian dictatorship's policy towards the peasantry in the transition period, and the beginning of their implementation in the conditions of the civil war and in the transition to a new economic policy, is considered in the works of Yu .A. Polyakov 2. He is also credited with studying the processes that reflect the demographic situation in the country during the first years of Soviet rule. 3 The researchers ' attention was constantly drawn to economic subjects: the nature and forms of the link between the city and the countryside, the tax and trade policy of the Soviet state, credit and financial relations, etc .4 Material on regulating urban-rural relations is provided by research on the struggle against capitalist elements in the economy .5 The political influence of the city on the countryside is revealed by historians through the analysis of the activities of the party, Soviet authorities, public organizations in the countryside, workers ' patronage, etc .
1 The results of the study of the problems of the restoration period are thoroughly analyzed in historiographical works: Dmitrenko V. P. Problems of NEP in Soviet historiography of the 60s-70s. In: New Economic Policy. Questions of theory and history. M. 1974; Danilov, V. P., Major problems in the history of the Soviet peasantry localhostname. In: Problems of the history of the Soviet Peasantry, Moscow, 1981; Historiography of the history of the CPSU in the period of restoration and development of the National economy. 1921-1925 Moscow, 1982; et al.
2. Polyakov Yu. A., Dmitrenko V. P., Shcherban N. V. Perekhod k nepu i sovetskoe krestjanstvo [Transition to NEP and Soviet Peasantry], Moscow, 1967. Development and implementation, Moscow, 1982.
3 Polyakov Yu. A. Population of Soviet Russia in 1917-1920 (Historiography and sources). In: Problems of the History of the Russian Social Movement and Historical Science, Moscow, 1981.
4 Tsibulsky, V. A., the history of credit and economic relations with the village in the first years of the NEP. - Proceedings of the Leningrad Institute of Culture, 1967, vol. 16, pp. 101-115; Dmitrenko V. P. Trade policy of the Soviet state after the transition to NEP. 1921-1924. Moscow, 1971; Saburov N. N. The Party's struggle to establish an economic bond between the working class and the working peasantry. 1921-1925 Moscow, 1975; Dudukalov V. I. Razvitie sovetskoi torgovli v Sibiri v gody sotsialisticheskogo stroitel'stva (1921-1928) [Development of Soviet trade in Siberia during the Years of Socialist Construction (1921-1928)]. Tomsk. 1978; Sokolov N. G. Tax policy of the Soviet state in rural areas during the recovery period and its impact on strengthening the union of the working class and peasantry (1921-1923). In: The Alliance of the Working Class and the Peasantry - a decisive force in the formation and development of socialist agriculture. Ryazan. 1980; Davydov M. I. Gosudarstvennyi tovaroobmen mezhdu gorod i derevnei v 1918-1921 gg. In: Istoricheskie zapiski, vol. 108; et al.; see also Istoriya sotsialisticheskoi ekonomiki SSSR, vol. 2, Moscow, 1976.
5 Trifonov I. Ya. Classes and class struggle in the USSR at the beginning of NEP. Ch. 1-2. L. 1964, 1969; Arkhipov V. A., Morozov L. F. Bor'ba protiv kapitalisticheskikh elementov v promyshlennosti i torgovle [The struggle against capitalist elements in industry and trade]. 20 - e-the beginning of the 30-ies. M. 1978; Sidorov V. A. Class struggle in the pre-kolkhoz village. 1921-1929 Moscow, 1978.
6 See: Spektor N. P. On the historiography of patronage of the city over the village in the years of preparation and creation of the collective farm system. 1923 - 1933. In: Voprosy istoriografii rabochego klassa SSSR [Issues of Historiography of the Working Class of the USSR], Moscow, 1970; Potapenko M. S. Partiynaya ra-
page 35
The relations between cities and villages are discussed in the literature devoted to strengthening the alliance of the working class and the peasantry .7 As for the social and settlement aspect, its study is, in fact, still in the initial stage. Recently, a number of new approaches to the study of cities and villages as forms of settlements have been outlined in connection with the introduction of the concepts of "urban" and "rural" lifestyle, "urban" and "rural" culture (within the framework of socialist lifestyles and cultures that are uniform in nature)into scientific circulation8 .
In this article, out of the whole complex of relations between the city and the countryside that were under the influence of the state, we consider only those that, in addition to those already established after October, developed the concept and practice of overcoming contradictions between the city and the countryside (through commodity-money relations - trade, tax, credit), ensured the interaction of socio-economic and settlement factors of society's development.
The prospect of a radical transformation of relations between the city and the countryside, designed for the entire transition period, was put forward from the very first years of the proletarian dictatorship. It was based on the commanding economic heights of the proletarian state, won during the revolution and consolidated during the years of the reconstruction period. In the policy of the Soviet state, aimed at restructuring the relationship between the city and the countryside, a course was set for the use of administrative and economic methods of regulation. The fundamental foundations laid by the socialist revolution determined the continuity of the period of restoration of the national economy with the preceding and subsequent stages of socialist construction. At the same time, the transition to peaceful economic construction required a new understanding of all the previous experience, the search for methods of regulating relations between the city and the countryside that most correspond to the totality of conditions, and bringing them into a system.
Considering the relations between the city and the countryside in the transition period from capitalism to socialism, we can single out the main line that defines their essence: the relations between the ruling working class, concentrated in the city, and the majority of the working population of the countryside, which acts as an ally of the working class in the struggle for socialism. At the same time, as long as capitalist elements remained in the economy and social structure of society, their involvement in the economic relations between the city and the small-peasant village and the socio-economic regulation of these relations were objectively necessary. The private sector of the economy was the bearer of the old system of relations, and as the socialist state developed, it became increasingly independent.-
bot in the village (1924-1925). Moscow, 1972; Losev A.V. Activity of the CPSU on the socialist education of the peasantry. In: Problems of the History of the Soviet Peasantry, Moscow, 1981; Permyakov A. N. On the role of the experience of party organizations in Siberia on socialist transformation to rural development. Novosibirsk. 1982; Seregina I. G. Socio-political life of the city and village during the restoration of the national economy: problems of convergence and the history of studying. In: Soviet Historiography of the October Revolution and Socialist Construction in the USSR. Kalinin. 1983; Kozlov V. A. Cultural Revolution and the peasantry (Based on the materials of the European part of the RSFSR). Moscow, 1983; et al.
7 Bakhtin M. I. The Union of Workers and Peasants in the years of restoration of the national economy. 1921-1925 Moscow, 1961; Lenin's Teaching on the Union of the working class and the Peasantry, Moscow, 1969; Union of Creators of a new Society: a brief sketch of the history of the Union of Workers and Peasants, 1917-1977, Moscow, 1979. The issues of rapprochement between the city and the countryside are reflected in the generalizing work: From capitalism to Socialism. Major problems in the history of the transition in the Soviet Union. 1917 - 1937, vol. 1. M. 1981.
8 See: Formation and Development of the Socialist way of life in the Soviet Countryside. Voronezh. 1982; Danilov V. P. To the study of culture and life of the Soviet pre-kolkhoz village. In: Sovetskaya kul'tura [Soviet Culture]. Istoriya i sovremennost ' [History and Modernity], Moscow, 1983
page 36
the state sector had to increasingly subordinate Nepman to state regulation, destroying these ties and building new ones.
Social and class content defines all aspects of the relationship between the city and the countryside: economic, political, ideological, cultural and everyday life, etc., which represent "industry" cross-sections of the problem. However, this determining significance of social factors is mediated by the forms of settlements. The problem of regulating urban-rural relations is thus a question of specifically "urban" and" rural " forms of manifestation of the proletarian state's policy, which is unified in its class nature and is aimed at building socialism. In Soviet Russia, where the dictatorship of the proletariat was carried out in conditions of a numerical predominance of the peasantry and small-scale production, the specific weight of problems that had a specific "rural" coloring was significant, which could not but affect the nature and forms of regulating relations between the city and the countryside.
State regulation of urban-rural relations is connected not so much with the destructive as with the constructive tasks of the socialist revolution, with the implementation of the organizational and economic function of the dictatorship of the proletariat. "Our dictatorship of the proletariat," V. I. Lenin said at a meeting of the All - Russian Central Executive Committee on April 29, 1918, "is the maintenance of order, discipline, productivity of labor, accounting and control, and proletarian Soviet power." 9 In the first period after the proletariat came to power, when a new mechanism of economic regulation had not yet been developed, the solution of these problems had to be carried out mainly through direct administrative intervention of the state. At the same time, there was a search for economic methods of managing the economy. The implementation of these measures was interrupted by the outbreak of civil war and imperialist military intervention, and only with the transition to peace did the issues of regulating socio-economic relations between the city and the countryside once again come to the fore. The fundamental foundations laid by the victory of the proletarian revolution, the experience of socialist construction accumulated in the first years of Soviet power, became the basis for further improvement of the state's regulatory activities.
Relations between the city and the countryside during the transition to peaceful construction were characterized by a breakdown in economic ties: the old system was practically destroyed, and the new forms that emerged during the war years partially did not correspond to the changed conditions. The difficulties of this moment were exacerbated by the extreme devastation of the country caused by the war and intervention. In particular, the breakdown of railway transport, which Lenin considered to be one of the manifestations of "the most striking connection between town and country, between industry and agriculture, on which socialism is based entirely,"had a sharply negative impact on relations between town and country .10 The recovery of transport and industry was hindered by the fuel crisis, whose origins were connected not only with the city, but also with the countryside, since firewood harvested by the peasantry as a labor service accounted for about 50% of the country's fuel balance (in 1920-48%)11 .
Naturally, in a country with a predominantly peasant population, the bulk of the damage caused by the war fell on the countryside. "An unusually severe crisis in the peasant economy" 12, p.-
9 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 36, p. 261.
10 Ibid., pp. 271-272.
11 V All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Stenogr. otch. M. 1921, p. 51.
12 Lenin V. I. T. 43, p. 147.
page 37
In many respects, the internal situation of the Republic of Soviets as a whole was determined by the lack of natural resources. Yet the key point that hindered the construction of a new system of communication with the countryside was the difficulties experienced by the city. Large-scale urban industry, as a highly organized production, was more affected by external influences and military destruction than by small-scale farming. At the same time, the industries that have been part of the socialized sector since the proletarian Revolution have suffered the most: metallurgy, the fuel industry, and mechanical engineering. The main production assets of large-scale industry have been reduced by more than half as a result of the damage caused by war and intervention, as well as physical wear and tear .13 The fact that the consequences of the devastation in the city were more noticeable than in the countryside was repeatedly stated in the press and speeches of participants of various forums .14 "After the end of the struggle against external enemies,"Lenin noted," the greatest danger, the greatest evil, was that we could not ensure continuous production work in the largest enterprises, which remained with us in a small number. " 15
Of all the urban settlements, large cities and industrial centers were in the most difficult situation. The picture of complete destruction was presented by the cities liberated from the interventionists and White Guards. Here, for example, is a description of Yaroslavl after the counterrevolutionary revolt of 1918: "A third of the city, if not more, the most densely populated, was completely destroyed, nothing remained of the buildings or only a few remnants survived. Many factories and factories were destroyed. The building of the post office, telegraph office, and water supply system was destroyed. The working part is particularly destroyed. " 16 The Petrograd Machine Building Trust reported: "The war years caused such damage to the city's metal industry that life in the Petrograd factories in 1919-1921 almost froze"17 .
The deterioration of the food situation in the cities caused a massive outflow of their population to the countryside. At the same time, the departure of citizens from Moscow and Petrograd was more than 2 times higher than the average for the urban population of the country as a whole .18 In 1917-1920, the number of residents of Moscow decreased from 2017,173 to 1027,336, and Petrograd - from 24,200,000 to 723,229 people .19
In this situation, there was a threat of weakening the political influence of the socialist city on the countryside. In the civil war, the peasantry made a clear choice: they supported the urban proletariat and the Soviet government. However, with the end of the war, the village began to express dissatisfaction with the manifestations of"war communism". The fluctuations between capitalism and socialism, which were natural for the small proprietor, were greatly amplified by economic ruin, excessive restrictions on the free turnover of goods, the need to hand over almost all the surplus products of his economy as surplus wages, the hardships of labor and horse-drawn service, and command methods of management. These vacillations were exploited by the enemies of the Soviet government. "The urban and rural bourgeoisie," said M. I. Kalinin in one of his speeches to the workers, " were able to arouse general discontent with the city, with the city in general... the White Guard element now sought to drive a wedge between the city and the countryside, replacing the bourgeoisie
13 Strumilin S. G. Problema promyshlennogo kapitala v SSSR [The problem of industrial capital in the USSR]. Moscow, 1925, p. 60.
14 Popov P. Bread production in the RSFSR and federating republics, Moscow, 1921, p. 4.
15 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 43, p. 311.
16 TsGAOR USSR, f. 5677, op. 3, d. 8, l. 79.
17 See: Restoration of Leningrad's Industry, l. 1963, p. 142.
18 Bulletin of the CSU, 1923, N 77, p. 13.
19 Trudy Gosplan. Ch. 1, kn. 2. Moscow, 1923, p. 58.
page 38
workers " 20 . In this context, the counter-revolutionary actions of the late 1920s and early 1921s used the slogan of non-classism.
Since the autumn of 1920, the question of relations with the countryside had been widely discussed in the press, and had not left the agenda of meetings, conferences, and congresses. During the discussion, the idea of state regulation of peasant farms was put forward, which was most fully expressed in the resolution of the VIII Congress of Soviets "On measures to strengthen and develop peasant and agricultural economy" - in a specific plan for the preparation and conduct of the sowing campaign of 1921 .21 The content of the resolution covered only one aspect of urban-rural relations - production (the link between industry and agriculture). In the context of the economic crisis, its promotion to the fore was justified, but the solution of the problem as a whole required taking into account the totality of relations between the city and the countryside.
This approach to evaluating the decisions made was contained in Lenin's report. Practical mass improvement of the economy of the small peasantry, he said, " is a state interest, the interest of our state."22 . Calling on the Congress delegates to approve the plan for the spring sowing campaign, Lenin linked it with the task of strengthening and expanding the support of the city by the rural majority: "The economic task is being set for the first time on a mass scale, and in order to win on this (economic. - V. F. ) front, it will be necessary to make a greater number of workers and peasants"23 . This position was the starting point for Lenin to raise the question of making concessions to the peasantry as a necessary condition for ensuring the support of the socialist city by the rural majority:"If the peasantry is now more tired, more exhausted, or rather considers itself more tired, then we are making more concessions to them in order to ensure the restoration of capitalism and ensure the path to communism." 24 Of course, it would be wrong to reduce the totality of the measures taken by the Soviet State in the transition to NEP in the area of urban-rural relations only to concessions to the peasantry: it was a question of developing a mechanism that would facilitate the formation of a new type of relationship, the gradual transition of the countryside to the path of social economy.
Unlike Lenin, the proponents of" military-communist " economic methods considered the task of restoring peasant farms in isolation from other aspects of urban-rural relations. According to one of the leaders of the "decists" group, N. Osinsky (V. V. Obolensky), the path of the village to socialism should have looked like this: first, the state (a socialist city) ensures the implementation of the sowing plan, then organizes the transfer of labor and inventory to "where there are not enough means of production", implements " full regulation crop rotations", on the basis of which there will be "transformation of individual strips into a public field with a public smell"25 . This approach reflected a narrow economic dimension.
20 Bednota, 27. IX. 1924.
21 Directives of the CPSU and the Soviet Government on economic issues, vol. 1, Moscow, 1957, pp. 191-196. The content of the resolution was analyzed mainly in terms of correlation with "war communism" and NEP. Some authors assessed the measures taken at that time as mainly "military-communist" (Yu. A. Polyakov, I. A. Gladkov, etc.), others saw them as a step towards a new economic policy (E. B. Genkina, A. A. Matyugin, I. A. Yurkov, etc.). Supporters of both points of view give quite convincing arguments, excluding the unambiguous interpretation of the document in relation to" military communism " and NEP.
22 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 42, p. 148.
23 Ibid., p. 142; see also p. 145.
24 Ibid., vol. 43, pp. 319-320.
25 Pravda, 14. VII. 1920.
page 39
understanding the problem of the city and the countryside, which reduced it, in essence, to the direct regulation of agriculture by the city 26 .
In the sphere of urban-rural relations, the transition of the Soviet state to a new economic policy meant the recognition of the inevitability of preserving for a relatively long period the various socio-economic foundations of their development: small-scale peasant farming in the countryside and the socialist economy in the city. The predominance of small-scale production in the country made it necessary to use such forms of economic communication between town and country that would meet the interests of the small producer and at the same time ensure the gradual transition of the peasantry to social forms of economy, to socialism.
Based on the set of real conditions, the created communication system should be based on principles that reflect both the laws of the transition period as a whole and the features of this stage. The most important of these principles were: strengthening the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, with the working class taking priority, accumulating the interests of all strata of the working people; ensuring the course of socialism's victory; involving all groups of workers in the construction of a new society; overcoming the consequences of the antithesis between town and country (agrarian overpopulation, poverty, cultural and technical backwardness of the countryside, inflated by the kulaks hostile attitudes towards the city, etc.); strengthening the planned principles in their relations.
It was impossible to solve the whole complex of problems at once, so it was necessary to find the main thing - something that would ensure the solution of the problems of the recovery period, taking into account the prospects of socialist restructuring of relations between city and village. In practical terms, this meant identifying a range of priority problems, determining the place and role of the proletarian state in solving them, developing methods for regulating urban-rural relations, bringing them into a system, and identifying the possibilities of a socialist city in ensuring its leading role in relation to the countryside.
At the beginning of the recovery period, trade became the main link in establishing economic ties in the country. Its role as a form of economic relations between town and country was determined by the fact that, on the one hand, trade solved the problems of restoring productive forces (it was possible to involve millions of small producers in economic construction only through trade), on the other hand, it contained the principle of relations between town and country, designed for the entire transition period and ensuring the gradual socialist transformation of small-scale production. With the transition to NEP, trade has become one of the central objects in the state-created system of regulating urban-rural relations.
The formation of market relations between urban and rural areas was part of the general policy of the Soviet State aimed at consolidating the alliance of the working class and the peasantry in the interests of building socialism. Therefore, the development of the market cannot be considered in isolation from the economic practice of the Soviet state as a whole, the dynamics of recovery processes in industry and agriculture. In particular, one of the determining factors for the development of the commodity market is-
26 In this connection, it is significant that when discussing the Draft Law on measures to restore agriculture at the Congress section, individual peasant delegates, while approving it as a plan for the sowing campaign, rejected it as a long-term prospect (Proceedings of the 8th Congress of Soviets on the land question. State regulation of the peasant economy. Volsk. 1921, pp. 8, 9).
page 40
monetary relations was the process of restoring the industry of cities, mainly its socialist sector. With the restoration of industry, an influx of people to the cities began, which led to an expansion of market relations, since due to the abolition of state supply, the market became the main source of food for most urban residents.
Along with this, commodity-money relations between the city and the countryside were an independent and rather complex object of regulation, requiring special measures. In the conditions of a multi - layered economy, the task of state regulation of market relations was to build on the commanding heights that were in the hands of the proletariat and ensure the leading role of large-scale nationalized industry and the socialist city, which opposed the spontaneous commodity-capitalist tendency of small-scale farming.
The first step on this path was the organization of a centralized exchange in kind, undertaken immediately after the transition to NEP. "A whole series of decrees and decrees, an enormous number of articles, all propaganda, all legislation since the spring of 1921 has been adapted to raise the exchange of goods," Lenin said at the Seventh Moscow Gubpartconference .27 However, the exchange of goods as an attempt to immediately subordinate the entire system of economic relations between the city and the countryside to the state did not stand up to the test of practice. Commodity exchange "as a field of struggle," Lenin emphasized in the autumn of 1921, "has been knocked out of our hands." 28 Defining the main features of the economic situation by the end of 1921, the XI All-Russian Conference of the RCP (b) noted the formation of the internal market and the development of money exchange and pointed out that in such conditions the Soviet state should "take over the regulation of the market and money circulation"29 .
The main task that was solved at the stage of transition to NEP was the development of trade turnover between the city and the countryside in breadth. It was necessary to restore the branches of the national economy that worked for the domestic market, to raise the marketability and marketability of agriculture, to recreate the network of commercial enterprises and credit institutions that served them, to master the main cargo flows, i.e., to realize the potential of mutual economic services, in order to further begin to restructure the system of trade relations in the interests of the socialist reconstruction of the entire national economy. At the same time, Lenin stressed that at first one should not be afraid of "a certain implantation of capitalism."30 The line of state regulation, as defined by the Ninth All-Russian Congress of Soviets in December 1921, was to rely on the economic power of the means of production concentrated in the hands of the workers 'and peasants' state to ensure influence "corresponding to the interests of the working masses represented by it" in credit institutions, on stock exchanges, in trade associations,etc. companies for import and export, cooperative institutions of various types, etc. 31 .
First of all, it was necessary to overcome the sharp lag of rural trade from the city. The volume of rural trade turnover, even in such "tovarizirovannyh" areas as Central Industrial and North-Western, was at the beginning of the recovery period.-
27 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 44, p. 207.
28 Ibid., p. 218.
29 CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. Ed. 8-E. T. 2, p. 301.
30 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 43, p. 270.
31 Directives of the CPSU and the Soviet Government on economic issues, vol. 1, p. 295.
page 41
from 4.2% to 6.9% of the total turnover during the reporting period. By 1923, the village retail network accounted for 22.6% of all retail establishments in the RSFSR, and urban establishments, as a rule, were larger than rural ones .32 The vast majority of manufactured goods were absorbed by the city market. Only 25% of the output of the textile industry, which was badly needed by the peasantry, went to the village market .33 One of the reasons for the narrowness of the latter was the low marketability of peasant farms, due not only to the state of production, but also to the growth of intra-village consumption of agricultural products. During the post-revolutionary years, the capacity of the intra-village market for agricultural products increased from 500 million rubles to 850 - 980 million rubles, i.e. almost twice 34 . As a result, the peasantry's resources for purchasing manufactured goods were significantly reduced. The village bought mainly household items, most of which were produced by artisans, often also living in rural areas.
The gap in the levels of development of urban and rural markets led to sharp fluctuations in the ratio of prices for industrial and agricultural goods, and made it difficult to regulate the exchange between the city and the countryside. Under these conditions, it was necessary to suspend the process of naturalization of individual peasant farming, which had accumulated during the process of middling, to activate its market relations, through them to demonstrate the advantages of an economic link with the socialist sector, to increase indirect taxation, and to increase the effectiveness of socio - economic regulation of various social groups of the peasantry.
In setting out the task of expanding the size of the village market, the Soviet state assumed that it could not be solved only by developing state trade. Moreover, in a declining economy, the exclusive development of state retail trade would have led to a diversion of funds from urban industry, which was fundamentally contrary to the interests of socialist construction. Therefore, the decisive role in the Village market was assigned to cooperation, and its importance was far from limited to the simple expansion of turnover. Cooperation was an expression of new principles of urban-rural relations, through which peasant farms were integrated into the system of socialist production relations, and the prerequisites for strengthening the regulatory influence of the state on socio-economic processes in the countryside were laid.
In 1921-1922, the rural cooperative was reorganizing its activity in relation to the conditions of the new economic policy. As early as 1922-23, the cooperative network in the Countryside increased by 32%, and the supply of peasant farms through it - by 40%. Nevertheless, the development of the general trade turnover was much faster than the growth of cooperative trade. One of the reasons that hindered the expansion of its turnover was the economic weakness of the cooperative. Poor and middle peasant farms did not have the means to strengthen the material base of cooperatives through entrance and share contributions, while cooperative centers located in provincial cities supplied the grassroots network with only 15-50% of its needs (depending on the distance from the center).35
32 Sel'stvo na puti vosstanovleniya [Agriculture on the ways of restoration], Moscow, 1925, pp. 207, 217.
33 Sotsialisticheskoe khozyaistvo, 1924, N 1-2, p. 210.
34 Strumilin S. G. Statistiko-ekonomicheskie ocherki [Statistical and economic essays]. Moscow, 1958, p. 440.
35 Private trade of the USSR, Moscow, 1927, p. 159; The place of consumer cooperation in the system of Soviet economy and its immediate tasks for the 1924/25 economic year, Moscow, 1925, p. 15, 16.
page 42
In the first years of the recovery period, the Soviet state followed the path of strengthening certain areas of trade that were most important in terms of strengthening its regulatory influence on the market. Primary importance in establishing relations with the city was given to improving raw materials procurement. During the war years, the village's production of raw materials for industry declined sharply. The market situation was unfavorable for raw materials (especially when compared with industrial products) in the first period after the transition to NEP. Prices for flax and flax fiber in 1922 compared with pre-war prices were 2.5 times lower than for bread; and for one yard of calico in February 1923, you could buy 30 times more flax than in 1913 .36
The supply of raw materials to the city was hampered by the predominance of the private sector in raw materials procurement, and the lack of importance of the state and cooperative procurement apparatus. In 1921-1922, many industrial enterprises experienced an acute shortage of agricultural raw materials. The situation on the commodity market required administrative intervention by the state, as the impact through economic levers could not give the desired results in a short time in those conditions. In order to develop measures for regulating raw materials procurement, a Commission for promoting Raw Materials was established under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in early 1923, followed by a Permanent Raw Materials Meeting with sections on certain types of raw materials .37
The first step on the way to mastering the raw material market was to attract industrial enterprises to self-procurement in the village .38 In the future, practice has shown the need for greater centralization of the commodity market. The linen market was one of the first to be restructured from these positions. Since 1924, flax harvesting produced by factories has been limited to the surrounding areas. At the same time, the range of organizations that were allowed to harvest flax throughout the country was clearly defined (Flax Center, Flax Trade, Gostorg, Centrosoyuz, Hliboprodukt)39 . The harvesting of wool and some other raw materials underwent a similar restructuring 40 .
An equally important channel through which the exchange between town and country took place" was the bread market; In 1923, a Special Authorized commission for the restoration and development of the bread trade was established under the SRT. In order to centralize its procurement, in May 1922 the joint - stock company Khleboprodukt (under whose jurisdiction the grassroots apparatus of food agencies was transferred-zagotkontory, warehouses) and 45 offices in the territory of the European part of the RSFSR began to function. In the interests of combating the private trader and strengthening the state's regulatory influence on the grain market, the use of "commodity intervention", i.e. large transfers of bread in order to saturate local markets, was successful. This method of verifying the correctness of the new relations with the countryside was applied in February 1924 in Leningrad, one of the key centers that have not only economic but also political significance on a national scale. 2 million poods were allocated to the Leningrad Consumer Society and the local branch of Hliboprodukt. rye for sale at firm prices. At the same time, state institutions reduced the sale of bread to private wholesalers (their share in the bread trade in 1924 was only 9%, in 1923 -57%). As a result of the cooperation-
36 TsGAOR USSR, f. 1066, op. 1, d. 16, ll. 44, 45.
37 Ibid., d. 1a, l. 154; Izvestiya VTsIK, 5. III. 1924.
38 Izvestiya VTsIK 25. I. 1923.
39 Ibid., 26. II. 1924.
40 Bulletin of the Moscow Commodity Exchange, 1924, No. 51.
page 43
industrial and state trade became dominant in the grain market of the region, which was economically close to Leningrad .41
The replacement of the in-kind tax on the peasantry by a monetary one led to an increase in the scale of market relations, which made it necessary to supplement the mechanism of state regulation of urban-rural relations with a new element-price regulation. In the first years of economic recovery, the use of this lever was complicated by the instability of the monetary system. The falling ruble exchange rate had a heavy impact on the countryside, making it difficult to overcome the natural relations inherited from "war communism" and collect monetary taxes, hindering the development of peasant farms. The problem of regulating prices for industrial and agricultural goods became particularly acute in connection with the" sales crisis " in the autumn of 1923. Only with the completion of the monetary reform in 1924 did the possibility of deeper state intervention in the pricing mechanism become possible.
In the last years of the recovery period, the price mechanism has become one of the most effective means of state regulation of market relations, social relations in the countryside, and the growth of profitability and marketability of peasant farms. Using it, the state stimulated the production of industrial goods oriented to rural demand and agricultural products, strengthened the position of state and cooperative trade, and involved the multi-million masses of the peasantry in economic ties with the socialist city. The Resolution on Internal Trade, adopted by the thirteenth Congress of the RCP (b), noted that "the direct measure of the extent to which the Soviet state exercises its leading role in the market is the degree of influence that the state exercises in regulating market prices."42
Since 1923, the practice of state and cooperative trade began to apply "limit prices" - the state set a price level that was forbidden to exceed. They were tested in the raw materials market. The introduction of state-limited prices initially caused a reduction in the supply of raw materials to the market. However, the firm position of the suppliers led to the fact that the import of raw materials was soon restored. Flax harvesting, which was carried out in 1924 on the basis of "limit prices", was carried out with a significant excess of tasks. "The linen market," one review reported, "is mostly in the hands of planned suppliers." 43
By organizing a counter-flow of goods to the countryside, the state first of all significantly reduced the prices of agricultural machinery and equipment. The decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of January 12, 1924 established the pre-war price list with the equalization of the ruble to the chervonets, which reduced the cost of agricultural machinery by an average of 1/3. At the same time, trade capes on them were reduced (for the European part - by 6%). The overall reduction in the cost of agricultural engineering products was 50%44 . These measures helped to overcome the economic backwardness of the countryside, and testified to the growing influence of industry on agriculture. In 1924, the state moved to a broader and more systematic regulation of the prices of basic goods traded on the market between the city and the countryside. In February, the order of the service station defined the procedure for setting limits on the number of employees.-
41 Leningrad Party Archive (LPA), f. 16, op. 1, 552, l. 50.
42 CPSU in resolutions, vol. 3, p. 65.
43 Report of the People's Commissariat of Land to the XI All-Russian Congress of Soviets for 1923/24, Moscow, 1925, p. 16; see also: Sotsialisticheskoe khozyaistvo, 1925, No. 2, p. 297.
44 SU, 1924, N 22, article 217.
page 44
prices of peasant goods (chintz, soap, matches, salt, kerosene, etc.) 45 .
As the price mechanism was mastered, the Soviet state extended its influence not only to large markets, but also to small, retail exchanges that existed on a local scale. In 1923-1924, a number of provisions regulating local turnover were adopted: the regulation on auction chambers and expert bureaus at commodity exchanges, the rules of bread trading on the exchange, the decree on registration of OTC transactions, the decree prohibiting local authorities from issuing orders that contradict the basic principles of the state's trade policy, and others. 46 Increased state regulation Market relations were reflected in the creation in 1924 of the People's Commissariat of Internal Trade( NKVT), whose functions, along with the development and implementation of the general principles of domestic trade policy, included "bringing prices for agricultural products, on the one hand, and for industrial products, on the other"47 .
Strengthening the regulatory role of the state in urban-rural relations strengthened the position of village cooperation. Its activities increasingly reflected the new principles of relations between the city and the countryside under the dictatorship of the proletariat: the leading role of the working class in the reconstruction of society, support for the poor and middle peasant strata of the peasantry, limiting the growth of the kulaks, economic and cultural development of the countryside, etc.
After the publication of Lenin's works on cooperation in 1923, the city's support for village cooperation increased. General agreements between trusts and co-operatives were beginning to be put into practice: the trusts were obliged to sell products according to the orders of the Central Union, and the co-operatives assumed the functions of supplying the peasantry with goods. The NKVT, after analyzing the practice of concluding such agreements, recognized them as "the most appropriate form of relations between cooperation and state industry" 48 . The SRT commission, which surveyed cooperatives in 75 counties of the European part of the RSFSR in July-September 1925, noted: "If in 1922-1923 bazaars and partly fairs were entirely in private hands, now state trade and cooperation occupied at least 25-33% of the market turnover." 49 The strengthening of village co-operation made it possible at the fifteenth Party Congress to describe it as "a huge transmission mechanism that helps socialist industry to lead the village-simple commodity producers." 50
As the economic levers of regulating urban-rural relations improved, the role of credit links as an independent channel and as an element connecting other links in the system of regulating urban-rural relations increased. In the post-revolutionary period, it was necessary to create agricultural credit anew, since the credit network that existed before (zemstvo cash registers, credit and savings banks) was eliminated due to its anti-democratic nature. The nature of credit relations between the city and the countryside changed radically: for the first time in history, the task of transforming these relations into one of the channels of state assistance to the working peasantry, into an instrument of economic development, was solved.-
45 Izvestiya VTsIK, 5. III. 1924.
46 Trade and Industrial newspaper. 1924, No. 50; Bulletin of the Moscow Commodity Exchange. 1924, NN 54, 31; Izvestiya VTsIK, 7. V. 1924.
47 SU, 1924, N 52, article 620; Izvestiya VTsIK, 30. X. 1924.
48 TSGANKH SSSR, f. 8151, op. 1, d. 50, l. 1.
49 Ibid., d. 48, ll. 72, 262.
50 CPSU in resolutions, vol. 4, p. 52.
page 45
regulation of socio-economic processes in the countryside in the interests of socialist construction.
The principles of state agricultural credit were formulated in the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of December 21, 1922 "On the restoration of agriculture and agricultural industry and on the organization of agricultural credit for the peasantry". "The Soviet government," the document said, " now considers it necessary to come to the aid of the peasantry by organizing cheap credit."51 . In the following years, the credit system was built both through the creation of state credit institutions (the Central Agricultural Bank) and through the development of peasant initiatives in credit cooperation. The combination of these two directions made it possible to involve broad strata of the peasantry in credit relations with the city.
Agricultural credit societies served as a link between the state and cooperative systems. Although the basis of their activity was state lending (70-75% of the funds of the societies consisted of subsidies allocated by the state), agricultural credit societies, usually based in provincial cities, were associated with a grassroots cooperative network. During the two years of their activity, more than 400 million rubles were sent to the village through them .52 According to the decision of the Congress of society chairmen, 85% of monetary loans went to peasant farms, the remaining 15% - to cooperatives and state institutions. According to the data of three provincial societies of the Central Industrial District, up to 80% of the credit funds sent to the countryside were received by poor and middle-class farms .53
Credit relations between the city and the countryside had a pronounced industrial character: non-industrial loans during the recovery period accounted for only 4.1% of the loan funds. Lending to rural machinery supply grew especially rapidly: from 1922/23 to 1924/25, the scale of lending increased 127-fold .54 No less important for peasant farms was in-kind lending, in particular such a form as a seed loan. The fund allocated to the People's Commissariat of Agriculture for this purpose was estimated at 33 million rye units .55 In-kind and monetary lending to peasant farms, as a rule, was linked to the production plans of the People's Commissariat of Land and Local land authorities, which introduced planning elements into the credit relations of the city and village.
The tax policy of the Soviet state developed in close connection with the establishment of a mechanism for regulating relations between cities and villages. Progressive taxation and privileges granted to the poor and middle peasant farms protected the class interests of the working peasantry from the exploitative aspirations of the kulaks, and made it possible for the village as a whole to move along the path of restoring productive forces. The tax stimulated the improvement of agriculture, encouraged social forms of farming. The transition from the in-kind tax to the monetary tax contributed to the growth of marketability of peasant farms and the expansion of market relations with the city .
Through the economic channels that connected the village with the city,
51 SU, 1922, N 81, article 1445.
52 System of agricultural credit, Moscow, 1928, p. 77.
53 Report of the People's Commissariat of Land for 1924/25, Moscow, 1926, pp. 79, 82-83.
54 Achievements and tasks of the agricultural credit system for the decade of the October Revolution, Moscow, 1928, p. 52.
55 SU, 1923, N 4, article 73.
56 SU, 1922, N 25, articles 410-414; N 36, articles 582-583; 1923, N 42, Articles 771.
page 46
it expressed the attitude of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat towards the small producer, with whom it was necessary to "get along" in order to secure the support of the socialist city by the rural majority and move towards socialism. The class orientation of the Soviet state's policy led to the transformation of these channels, historically associated with the division of society into cities and villages, from a tool for exploiting the countryside to a means of restoring the productivity of peasant farms, transforming working conditions and distribution relations in the countryside.
The practice of using economic levers to regulate urban-rural relations has led to the recognition of the need for their closer coordination with the social settlement organization of society, which mediates economic ties between the city and the village. Differences in the levels of socio-economic development, the specifics of sources of income in the city and village required a clear differentiation of measures in relation to different forms of settlements. Meanwhile, the settlement that existed in the early 1920s made it difficult to solve this problem. The system of settlements inherited from the past did not lend itself to a clear division into city and village in the socio - economic sense. Along with large industrially developed cities at one pole and a huge number of "purely rural" settlements at the other, there were many settlements that occupied an intermediate position, but the trend of their development was not clearly identified.
This type included the vast majority of small towns and administrative centers, whose population largely lived at the expense of agricultural activities. In 32 provinces of the European part of Russia, there were 172 such cities (with a population of up to 10 thousand inhabitants). In terms of administrative significance, 57 of them were volost centers, while the rest were county centers. The economic and domestic way of life of these cities was not much different from the rural one. In the 1923 census, between 9 and 36% of small-town residents identified agriculture as their main occupation. The survey compiled by Gosplan included this category of cities among the settlements that "have moved away from the rural type and have not yet acquired the urban character due to their insufficient development"57 .
Work to streamline the settlement process began in the first post-revolutionary years. However, the widespread transformation of villages into towns and cities into villages in 1918-1922, which was usually carried out on the basis of decisions of local authorities, did not always meet the national and class interests of the working peasantry, and often led to complaints from the peasants to the center 58 . This caused the need to strengthen centralizing, national principles in improving settlement. In December 1923, the Central Executive Committee adopted a decree prohibiting the transformation of villages into cities by local authorities. "From the materials received by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee," it said, " it is clear that many executive committees are transforming settlements from villages, towns, settlements, etc. in urban-type settlements and introduce city taxes there... without respecting the interests of the agricultural population", which caused "a lot of peasant complaints to the central authorities and excessive trips to Moscow by walkers"59 . The decree introduced a procedure according to which each fact of transformation of the settlement was subject to approval in the central authorities.
The first practical step to streamline the settlement system
57 TsGAOR USSR, f. 5677, op. 6, d. 96, l. 7.
58 In 1923, for example, the Administrative Commission of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee received 60 peasant complaints in connection with the transformation of villages into cities (ibid., op.4, d. 12, ll. 66,67).
59 SU, 1924. N 15, article 129.
page 47
there was an All-Union city census of 1923. The instruction published on the eve of the census referred to cities as settlements with a population of at least 2 thousand (according to the 1920 census), which are "mainly engaged in trade and industry" 60 . The city census provided material that allowed us to start developing the question of criteria for urban and rural settlements. The result of this work was the decree "General provisions on urban and rural settlements and settlements", adopted by the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on September 15, 1924. In accordance with the decree, all settlements of the RSFSR, with the exception of dacha, workers ' and resort settlements, were divided into two categories: : urban and rural settlements. Cities were considered localities with a population of at least 1 thousand people, provided that no more than 25% of the inhabitants are engaged in agriculture (as the main occupation). It also took into account the availability of land for expanding the territory, the dynamics of growth in the number of residents, and the degree of interest of the working population of a given locality in classifying it as an urban settlement .61 Following this, the decision on the issue of the city line was streamlined. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee has established control over the allocation of land to cities, while respecting the interests of both urban residents and the agricultural population of suburban zones. 62
Based on the developed criteria, 61 "new" cities were formed in the European part of the RSFSR (mainly in the Central Industrial Provinces) in 1924-1925. In 1925, lists of cities were compiled and approved by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in almost all provinces. The relative stabilization of the urban network indicated the completion of the initial stage of the formation of the entire settlement system based on the leading role of the socialist city. 63
The improvement of settlement as one of the most important elements of the socio - territorial organization of society prompted the Soviet state to return to the question of economic levers in order to better link them with urban and rural conditions.
In 1924-1925, taking into account changes in settlement, all aspects of the economic regulation of urban - rural relations were adjusted. This was reflected, in particular, in the tax policy. Guided by the tax legislation, local authorities began to differentiate taxation in cities and rural areas more clearly. By decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of June 11, 1924, farms located within the city limits, living off agricultural labor, were exempt from paying rent and local fees, and the provincial executive committees were allowed to establish a single agricultural tax for them. 64 In suburban areas (within the 30-mile lane around large cities and 10-mile lane around small ones), the rates of patent fees were increased 65 .
The economic ties organized by the state were the basis for the formation of new relations of cooperation
60 Vestnik statistiki, 1923, kn. XV, N 7-12, pp. 210-225.
61 SU, 1924, N 73, st. 726; TsGAOR USSR, f. 5677, op. 5, d. 10, ll. 2, 3.
62 Cities were assigned lands that were under the jurisdiction of city councils at the time of the adoption of the Land Code (August 1, 1922). In the event of a change in the city line, it was necessary to submit to the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee a request from the City Council, minutes of meetings of residents of villages planned for inclusion in the city (SU, 1923, N 77, art. f. 5677, op. 5, d. 39, l. 21).
63 At a meeting of the Council of People's Commissars in June 1925, the proposal to change the criteria for urban settlement was rejected and it was decided to strictly adhere to the adopted provisions, since "in the absence of a firm and definite line between the concepts of "city" and" village "... it is difficult to establish a firm and definite approach to solving practical issues " (TSAOR USSR, f. 5677, op. 2, 15, ll. 116, 118, 159).
64 Ibid., op. 4, d. 12, l. 6.
65 SU, 1923, No. 6, Article 94.
page 48
between the city and the countryside, which, in turn, created the prerequisites for an attack on private capital. The fight against private ownership was a matter of both economic and settlement relations. With the improvement of settlement, conditions were created for more effective use of administrative and economic methods of struggle against the private entrepreneur, who sought to make a profit, using for this purpose the discrepancy between the legal status and the socio-economic role of settlements.
In many cases, the private citizen initiated complaints and protests against the transformation of villages into cities. Such a complaint, for example, was received by the ECIC from the village of Pissovo, Ivanovo-Voznesenskaya province, which was transformed by the decision of the local Council into an urban settlement. Opposition to the decision was motivated in the complaint by the fact that due to the closure of the local factory, residents of the village did not have "urban" sources of income. As it turned out later, during the work of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee commission, the initiator of the complaint was a group of merchants (the village was the shopping center of a number of surrounding volosts), who, in fact, conducted" urban " large-scale trade under the sign of "rural", which allowed them to avoid higher tax levy .66 Another letter, on the contrary, requested that the town of Leninsk in the same province be transformed into a village. Here, as it turned out, the initiative belonged to the owners - artisans who had hired workers. In rural settlements, it was easier for them to avoid paying patent and equalization fees, and to avoid monitoring compliance with labor legislation .67
The formation and development of the settlement system had another side, connected with the movement of the population. During the recovery period, the direction of demographic processes changed: the outflow of population from cities was replaced by a reverse movement - an influx into cities. Regulating the movement of the population was associated with the solution of one of the most difficult tasks-the elimination of agricultural overpopulation. However, during the years of economic recovery, only the first steps were taken in this area: the general scale of overpopulation was revealed, the principles and ways to overcome it, the capabilities of the state were determined, and some forms of regulation of this process were tested.
In order to reduce the scale of agricultural overpopulation, the Soviet state decided in 1920 to organize the resettlement to Siberia of peasant families who expressed a desire to leave the seven starving provinces of Central Russia. However, due to material and transport difficulties, this attempt failed. The circular of the People's Commissariat of Land, published in March 1921, reported: "The forced migration campaign from some central provinces to Siberia opened in 1920 under the influence of mainly food difficulties clearly showed how painful it is for the population and difficult for the state to relocate in modern conditions of unclear economic feasibility of evictions from certain localities, uncertainty of the resettlement fund, etc. transport difficulties " 68 .
This failure forced the Soviet State to concentrate on its preparatory work. In 1923, the accounting of free land in Siberia, the Volga region and the Far East was started (32 thousand dessiatines were counted). By this time, 21,500 applications for resettlement had been received from farmers in the European part of Russia .69 The State has taken measures
66 TsGAOR USSR, f. 5677, op. 5, d. 131, ll. 1, 7, 9, 10. In 1925, Pissovo was transformed into a work settlement.
67 Ibid., op. 4, d. 133, l. 13.
68 Ibid., d. 1, l. 207.
69 TSGANKH SSSR, f. 478, op. 3, d. 1396, l. 12.
page 49
on the introduction of collective principles in the resettlement movement: in 1924, it was decided to create resettlement associations 70 . These measures laid the foundations of the settlement policy, which was actively implemented in the subsequent stages of socialist construction.
By the end of the recovery period, a system of regulation of urban-rural relations corresponding to the social conditions of the transition period was formed in general terms, which, despite the numerical predominance of the rural population (in 1926 only 18% of the population lived in cities), ensured the decisive influence of the socialist city on the nature of the development of small-scale production, the scale and dynamics of the movement of the peasant mass towards socialism. As the 15th Congress of the CPSU(b) noted, the most important result of the recovery period was that "the ratio between town and country became fundamentally different, because industry turned 'face to the countryside', becoming a powerful factor in its socialist transformation, and the growth of the domestic market began to express itself, unlike capitalism, not the process of ruining the countryside and the growth of its welfare " 71 .
The tendency to create an integrated system of state regulation of urban-rural relations during the years of economic recovery was manifested in the increasingly expanded and complicated connections of its individual elements. Starting with the regulation of market relations, the Soviet state at certain stages supplemented the emerging system with new levers: credit relations, monetary taxes, price regulation, improvement of settlement, etc. At the same time, as each of the elements was connected, their interaction was established: tax policy was linked to the development of market relations and the growth of marketability of peasant farms, credit - to the price policy, and so on.The current system was designed for relations between the city and the small peasant village, but it was created taking into account the prospects of its socialist reconstruction and contained the possibilities of such restructuring.
The creation of a socialist system of regulating relations between town and country meant at the same time the destruction of the old ties inherited from capitalism. At the same time, the task of combating private capital had an independent significance, in a certain sense forming the content of the policy of the Soviet government throughout the transition period. With the strengthening of the socialist sector of the economy and the restoration of the country's productive forces, the measures taken by the Soviet State in relation to the private capitalist elements assumed the character of increasingly detailed and strict regulation, including taking into account the peculiarities of urban and rural settlements. This trend reflected the course towards mastering the entire mechanism of connections between such complex social settlement formations as the city and village of the transition period.
70 SU, 1924, N 68, article 681.
71 CPSU in resolutions, vol. 4, p. 31.
page 50
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2020-2025, LIB.AM is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Armenia |