The Collectivization of Agriculture in Communist Eastern Europe: Comparison and Entanglements

Ideology and Asymmetrical Entanglements: Collectivization in the German Democratic Republic

ideology and asymmetrical entanglements: Collectivization in the german Democratic republic Jens sChöne march 15, 1953 was just like any other sunday in the german Democratic republic: the Free Farmer, a weekly paper distributed by the society of farmers (vdgB) was published. But this particular issue focused entirely on one extraordinary event: the death of Josef Wissarionowitsch stalin. The head of the ministry and secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist party and the absolute leader of the soviet union had died only ten days before, at the age of 74. a tangible sadness—obligatory for some, sincere for others—had settled over the entire eastern Bloc. This heartfelt emotion was expressed in a telegram sent by the Central Committee of the vdgB, a german communist mass organization: “The death of Josef Wissarionowitsch stalin, the architect of communism, the creator of collective industry, the leader of the soviet people and contributor towards the general forward evolution of man, fills us with great sorrow... stalin’s teaching has laid the path for the working farmers of the german Democratic republic, teaching us how to create socialism within our local communities, enriching both our land and our lives.”1 The content of the telegram exactly reflects the orientation of the agrarian politics of the gDr during the 1950s. it also foretells the direction the future would take. after the end of the second World War and the beginning of the soviet occupation, the entire agrarian structure east of the river elbe underwent purposeful, ideologically driven reform. a fundamental 1 Der Freie Bauer, 2. 148 JENS SCHÖNE part of this land reform, which took place approximately between 1945 and 1948, was the reorganization of the traditional german small-town elite and its institutional support structure. Beginning in 1952, collectivization was slowly implemented. This process was neither continuous nor unchallenged, yet it was organized along very clear, goal-oriented guidelines . The fact that most other soviet-dependent states followed similar guidelines proves that the gDr had little choice but to move away from a system of private land ownership and to accept the full collectivization of its agriculture. This chapter examines the collectivization of the agriculture in the gDr as an example of the broader soviet-modeled program implemented across the Communist Bloc. The goal is not to record all facets of the development of the “comrade’s collective,” nor is it to outline the entire history of the process in the gDr. instead, the chapter will focus on central problems crucial to the collectivization process, and in the context of the socialist-constructivist politics in agricultural circles at the time: namely, ideological foundation of the collectivization process versus the changing goals of policy makers in east Berlin and in moscow. The chapter is framed by several underlying questions: Did ideology play a deciding role in the collectivization process or were practicalities on the ground the primary factors of influence? Did the soviet model, which was certainly followed, evolve into a unique gDr-version of collectivization during the process? how far did the independence of the socialist unity party of germany (seD) actually go—in other words, did the seD assert its independence despite the clear hegemony of the Communist party of the soviet union (Kpdsu)? in order to address these questions, it is necessary to first provide a short overview of the course of collectivization in the gDr, including the basic ideology of marxist-leninist agrarian theories, which will illustrate the practical influences that “comradeship” had in the gDr at the time. in addition, the chapter will examine the deciding steps taken by the seD toward collectivizing the agriculture in 1952–1953 and 1958–1960. it will also explore what room for maneuvering—if indeed there was any— the seD had at its disposal, specifically in terms of the party’s capacity to gain power with respect to the soviets. in order to answer these questions in depth, it will become necessary at points to draw comparisons to the collectivization experiences in other countries under soviet hegemony. indeed, developments in these countries influenced the ways in which the gDr implemented its own agrarian reforms. The gDr did not follow these examples stringently, but rather adopted neighboring policies only in 149 Ideology and Asymmetrical Entanglements moments of imminent transformation. The relationship between the gDr and the soviet union was more one-sided. moscow stood as the undeniable center point of...