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

Collectivization as Social Practice: Historical Narratives and Competing Memories as Sources of Agency in the Collectivization Campaign in the GDR

Collectivization as social practice: historical narratives and Competing memories as sources of agency in the Collectivization Campaign in the gDr Arnd BAuerkämper The transformation of agriculture and rural society in the gDr in the 1950s was initiated “from above” by the leadership of the socialist unity party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands), or seD. at the same time, however, the process was implemented, interpreted and appropriated by various regional and local actors who either rejected collectivization or adapted to it and attempted to integrate the system into their ideologies. often these reactions overlapped as much as the modes of conduct—from compliance to outright opposition. individual and collective agency therefore served as either social or cultural resources supporting collectivization or became barriers to the process. how collectivization as a process of radical transformation was perceived, interpreted, and appropriated are important fields of historical investigations. This chapter demonstrates how conflicting versions of history and different memories of past experiences, especially of germany’s past and of collectivization in the soviet union, respectively, had a particularly strong impact on individual and collective agency in the gDr’s collectivization campaign. Yet these factors were far from uniform and static in rural society. in fact, opposing memories frequently clashed in rural society and the gulf separating peasants and farmers from the party and state functionaries proved to be almost insurmountable.1 These conflicting memo1 for remarks on the role of recollections in the gDr’s collectivization of agriculture , see Bauerkämper, “Collectivization and memory;” Bauerkämper, Ländliche Gesellschaft, 458–63. 402 ARND BAUERKÄMPER ries coalesced around the notion of the “class war,” which agrarians and officials shared despite their conflicting interpretations of the concept. however, the collectivization process was decisively shaped by opposing views of the various social and professional groups in the villages . solidarity among villagers was therefore difficult to achieve. in a similar vein, memories were colored by the concerns and interests of actors (farmers as well as functionaries) in the 1950s, when collectivization directly challenged the traditional values and notions of private property, self-reliance, and family work. entrenched social hierarchies were demolished , as farmers, peasants, and agricultural laborers had to cooperate on roughly equal terms in the new collectives. Thus, the enforced merger of independent producers triggered long-standing resistance and occasionally violent opposition from villagers. even after collectivization had officially been accomplished in the gDr in april 1960, farmers felt especially helpless and overwhelmed by agitation groups that had swarmed villages in 1959–60 in order to force farmers to join or create collectives.2 These confrontations, along with contemporary experiences and past memories, underscored the complex local dynamics of social and economic upheaval collectivization created. The present chapter investigates the proposition that collectivization is to be conceptualized as an ensemble of social practices fuelled by individual and collective agencies. The intention, here, is to shed light on these dynamics by concretely reconstructing and analyzing social relations in rural society in the 1950s and early 1960s. previous research on the social and cultural history of collectivization in the east german “Workers’ and peasants’ state” has concentrated on certain states and regions. moreover, most studies have either dealt with the decision-making process at the higher echelons of power or on the issue of repression and peasant resistance to collectivization. These investigations have largely treated both “the state” and “the peasantry” as unitary, monolithic actors, denying or underrating the agency of individual or collective actors. in fact, the crucial role of these actors as historical subjects has been largely neglected. Despite the well-explored notion of a “civil war”3 between peasants and regime functionaries, few studies have investigated peasant reactions to collectivization, which fundamentally challenged traditional modes of production, rural values, and life styles. 2 for a detailed account of the main problems of collectivization in the gDr, see Jens schöne’s contribution to this volume. 3 With regard to the collectivization of agriculture and forced grain procurements in the ussr, see viola, Peasant Rebels, 44, 130, 180, 233, 235. 403 Collectivization as Social Practice The differentiated responses to collectivization from diverse rural groups in specific local and regional contexts—ranging from steadfast resistance to accommodation and collaboration with the regime—has received little attention in recent historiography, which has grossly neglected the comparative perspective and cross-border entanglements.4 similarly, the conflicts and methods of solidarity among peasants and between peasants and villagers (including...