MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT UNIFIED AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 30, 2013
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: May 23, 1955
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
This material contains information affecting the National Defense of the United States within the meaning of the Espionage Laws, Title
18, U.S.C. Sees. 793 and 794, the transmission or revelation of which in any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.
C-0-144-I-D-E-N-T I A?L
SUBJECT
DATE OF INFO.
PLACE ACQUIRED
DATE ACQUIRED
762,201
r8.301
722',102
REPORT
DATE DISTR.
NO. OF PAGES
REQUIREMENT NO.
REFERENCES
5/55
2
27M
27M
27M
729.104 27M
781.11 27M
767.001 27M
50X1
(16)
C?-0. N- P I D-E-N-T-I-A-L
AIR FBI
(Mole: Washington distribution indicated by "X"; Field distribution by "#"'.)
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
Miscellaneous Information about
Unified Agricultural Cooperatives
C-02-0406
23 May 1955
SOURCE EVALUATIONS ARE DEFINITIVE. APPRAISAL OF CONTENT IS TENTATIVE.
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
REPORT NO.
COUNTRY Czechoslovakia
SUBJECT Miscellangous Information about,,.
Unified Agricultural Cooperatives
PLACE ACOUIRED
SOURCE
1, The program to establish"Unified Agricultural Cooperatives (JZD) was
initiated at the end of 1949. The government policy which aimed to
abolish private farming and establish cooperatives was most strongly
enforced during 1951 and 1952.. At the end of 1953, when a new
agricultural policy which meant relaxation in the drive for setting
up cooperatives was officially proclaimed by the regime, about 38
per cent of the total agricultural land in Czechoslovakia was owned
by cooperatives..
2. In general, there were more cooperatives in Bohemia than in either
Moravia or Slovakia. This was because there were more Communists
in Bohemia than in either of the other two parts of the country.
There were more cooperatives in low fertile areas than in hilly
areas>and practically no cooperatives were established in mountain-
ous regions, i.e., 600 m. or more above sea level. The Communists
made a greater effort to bring fertile areas under their control.
The collectivization reached a relatively high level in the Bohemian
border areas where the majority of farmers were Communists. They
were, for the most part, former agricultural laborers who resettled
in border areas and who had had no experience with independent
farming; therfore, they preferred . to join cooperatives and let the
cooperative take the responsibility for the results. In Slovakia,
areas having Hungarian populations had more cooperatives than areas
with only Slovak population. Basing his opinion on the above-
mentioned facts, source concluded that -the areas with the largest
number of cooperatives were the Prague and Pardubice regions and the
part of Southern Slovakia encircled by Nove Mesta nad Vahom (N 48_45,
E 17-50), Trnava (N 49-18 E 17-50), Bratislava, the Danube River,
Sturovo (N 48-04, E 18-58~, and Nitra (N 48-19, E 18-05). The Hana
area (roughly central Moravia) and Southern Moravia came next. Areas
having only a small number of cooperatives were the Gottwaldov,
Zabreh (N 49-53, E 16-52), and Uhersky Brod (N 49-02, E 17-39)
districts and the regions of Presov (N 49-00, E 21-45) and Zilina
(N 49-10, E 19-00). Source did not know of any village which was
THIS IS UNEVALUATED INFORMATION
DATE DISTR.- 26 peril 1955
NO. OF PAGES 6
REFERENCES:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
DUA I
CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
entirely collectivized. Even the so-called'"model" cooperatives,
such as the one in Kadov, in the Jihlava (N 49-20, E 15-30) region,
did not include. the entire area of the village. On the other hand,
a number of villages had no cooperative; but the villages in which
a cooperative had been established were in the distinct majority.
I. Most of the cooperativeI were type three; source did not know of any
type four cooperatives. They were of various sizes. The smallest,
the so-called "minority" cooperatives, had about 50 hectares each.
These cooperatives were made up of "factory farmers" and farmers
with small acreages, but, because the remaining farmers of the
village did not join, the cooperatives remained small. Most of the
"minority" cooperatives were in southeast Moravia. This area had
only a few large cooperatives because of the resistance of the
population to collectivization. The cooperatives of medium size had
from 300 to 500 hectares each. These usually included from 60 to
80 per cent of the area of a village. There were also "giant"
cooperatives having 2,000 hectares or even more; for instance, the
cooperative in Hradec nad Svitavou cN 49-43, E 16-29) had about
2,300 hectares. Most of the "giant' cooperatives were in the border.
areas.
The strongest supporters of collectivization were the "factory
farmers" and the "small" farmers -- those having up to five hectares.
The "factory farmers" were usually CF members and it was their
Party duty to encourage the establishment of cooperatives. Further-
more, they were eager to create cooperatives because they counted on
continuing to make their living by their factory wages and leaving
the responsibility of the land and most of the work to the coopera-
tive while they still enjoyed the profit. However, they miscalcu-
lated because, according to the government program for the
recruitment of labor for agriculture which was initiated in 1954, the
"factory farmers" were to leave the factories and work exclusively
on cooperatives.2 The majority of "small" farmers were also CP
members; this was especially true of "small" farmers in Bohemia.
They were Communists mainly because they believed the Communist
propaganda which promised that the residual est,aates in their areas
would be divided among them.. Actually, this nelt~er happened.
Instead, the regime began to promise that the local residual estates
would be made a part of the cooperative, should a cooperative be
established. "Small" farmers wanted to increase their acreage in
order to earn a better living and., therefore, they were in favor of
the cooperatives. However, most of the residual estates did not
become part of the cooperatives but were turned over to the state
farms instead.
The private farmers who owned from 17 to 25 hectares or more were
also inclined to collectivize, but, in contrast to the reasons
which prompted "small" farmers and "factory farmers" to join
cooperatives, they did so for purely economic reasons. Since their
machinery had been confiscated and they were not allowed to hire
laborers, they could not cultivate their fields; therefore, the only
solution for them was to join the cooperatives. However, they were
admitted to the cooperatives only if the cooperative as a whole
had enough laborers to assure cultivation of their land. Otherwise,
they were left to their own devices. This labor problem continued
to. remain unsolved.
The strongest opponents to collectivization were farmers with from
5 to 17 hectares. They usually did not have machinery sufficiently
large to be "purchased' by the tractor and machinery pools and they
were allowed to keep thir equipment. They also were able to culti-
vate their fields without hiring additional labor. On the other
hand, it sometimes happened that farmers. owning from 12 to 20 hectares,
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
CONFIDENTIAL
if they constituted the large majority of a village, established a
cooperative, They would decide to do so, not because they were pro-
Communist, but because of economic reasons. They were overloaded
with work and could not hire help; therefore, they wanted to have
their fields cultivated with machinery from the tractor and machinery
pools. It is obvious that these cooperatives la:clced,Communistic
spirit and could not be controlled by the CP because they were run
by nbn-Communists. The CF refarred to them as "kulak" cooperatives
and fought against them, although not openly; however, the Communists
did not know what to do about them because they proved to be rather
profitable, These cooperatives fulfilled delivery quotas, but they
did not comply with the 'various directives established by the local
government. The planning called for a certain acreage to be sown
with a particular crop and for a certain amount of the crop to be
turned over to the state market through bulk purchase. However, the
cooperative members,, because they were good farmers,achieved a higher
crop yield than had been anticipated by the planning officials;and,
therefore, they planted the particular crop on a smaller acreage
than had been planned and used the remaining acreage for a better-
paying crop which they sold on the retail market, This, of course,
did not comply with the intentions of the local government which
preferred adherence to planned acreages. In that way it might be
possible for "Communist" cooperatives to supply more than the
delivery quotas through bulk purchases. The kulak cooperative
members were also reluctant to build a common stable, claiming that
it was unnecessary. However, each type three cooperative had to
have a common stable in order to comply with the directives. The
"Communist" cooperatives built common stables in spite of the fact
that they did not want them because they had to borrow money in
order to construct the stables. Almost all type three cooperatives
had a common stable and some of them also had common pig sties
Source saw only two cooperatives which had a common stable, a
common pig sty, and a common barn.
The relationship between a "Communist" cooperative and the private
farmers in the villages was usually one of direct opposition,
which was exactly what the CP wanted. The cooperative members
who were Communists naturally did not like the private farmers, and
even those who were not Communists envied them because they had
managed to survive withaut joining a cooperative. However, the
relationship between a "kulak" cooperative and private farmers
was very good. The "kulak" cooperatives were relatively rare,
their existence necessitating a specific village social structure,
i.e., no great differences in the amount of land possessed and no
Communists among the farmers of the village. Most of the "kulak"
cooperatives were located in the Hana area. For example, the
cooperative in Slapanice (N 49-10, E 16-44) was considered a
"kulak" cooperative.
Whether or not a cooperative was established in a village depended,
of course, not only upon-the category of the farmers, as classified
above, b~t also upon the amount of effort put forth by the CP
machine.
The Unified Agricultural Cooperative (JZD) was a cooperative made
up of private farmers, the individual members remaining the owners
of the land which they contributed to the cooperative. In the case
of state farms, the land became the property of the state and was
administered by the. state farm. The individual cooperatives had a
uniform system or organization which complied with government
directives. However, in contrast to state farms, the cooperatives
did not form a centralized setup, and individual cooperatives were
independent of each other. The individual cooperatives were on their
own, enjoying their profits alone and suffering their losses alone.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
 f;.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
50X1
CONFIDENTIAL
.j4_
The cooperatives were not financed from the national budget as were
the state farms, and their financial profit or loss did not appear
as such in the budget. The government allotted only loans to the
cooperatives. The interest on capital investment loans was 2J per
cent and on working capital it was about six per cent.
10. The effect of the above-mentioned procedures which are somewhat
characteristic of private enterprise was, however, canceled by the
fact that production on cooperatives had to conform with overall
planning directives as established by the central government and
the local governments. In contrast to the state farms, the coopera-
tives had only light agricultural machinery] thus, they were dependent
on the state tractor and machinery pools. It was obvious that this
arrangement was intended to give the regime control over the coopera-
tives. It was claimed that the pools could make better utilization
of the machinery and achieve better results than if the machinery
were managed by the cooperatives themselves. In direct contrast to
this reasoning, however, the state farms were permitted to have their
own machinery. The fulfillment of production directives as well
as life in general on the cooperatives was fully controlled by the
CP and local governments in a way which could not possibly have been
achieved with private farmers. From the political-economic point of
view, the regime intended the cooperatives to be mass production
units and, therefore, they could not and did not enjoy all the
privileges which the regime accorded state farms. The privileges
given the state farms made the cooperative members envious,, and the
relationship between state farms and cooperatives was, therefore,
quite unfriendly.
11. Each Unified Agricultural Cooperative (.JZD) was headed by a chairman
who was responsible for carrying out the daily operations. There
was also an agronomist and a technician in charge of animal hus-
bandry on cooperatives which had approximately 200 hectares or more.
On small cooperatives these functions were handled by the chairman.
The chairman,, agronomist, and technician in charge of animal
husbandry were elected by the members of the cooperative. There was
also an accountant on each cooperative. These four functionaries
formed a staff which was responsible to the supervisory board of
the cooperative, the members of which were also elected. On large
cooperatives, there were also assistants to the technician in
charge of animal husbandry and the agronomist. These assistants
were called group leaders and were also elected by the members of
the cooperative. The daily work was performed by two main groups
one for work, in the fields and one to work with the animals..
Members were permanently assigned to each group.
.2. Tt was obligatory that each member retain a small acreage which was
not to exceed one-half hectare, one cow, one or two hogs, and some
fowl. It. sometimes occurred that a cooperative member wanted to
contribute all of his land to the cooperative, but he was not
allowed to. do so, apparently because the regime wanted the coopers-
tive members to have a reserve which would supply them with a
minimum'quantity of food should the cooperative completely fail or
should the entire production of the cooperative have to be turned
over to the state.
3. 'The cooperative members were paid according to the number of work
units they completed. Each work unit was equal to a specified sum
of money and a specified amount.of agricultural produce, and was
calculated by"each cooperative in accordance with national direc-
tives. The National Congress of Cooperatives, according to govern-
ment directives, established seven "efficiency" categories into
which all types of agricultural work were grouped according to the
difficulty of the operation performed. For example, cleaning the
farm yard was included in the first category, plowing with horses
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
CONFIDENTIAL
-5-
was in the fourth category, and work of the chairman was in the seventh
category. A dertain amount of a particular kind of work was
established as a norm, e.g., plowing one-half hectare with horses
was considered to be the norm for that type of work. The norm was
roughly the amount of work which could reasonably be completed in
one day. The completed norm equaled a:fraction or multiple of the
work unit, depending on the particular "efficiency" category of
the work. The completed norms for each of the seven efficiency it
categories equaled the following fractions or multiples of a work
unit: first category, .50 work unit; second category, .75 work
unit; third category, 1.00 work unit; fourth category, 1.25 work
units; fifth category, 1.50 work units;`sixth category, 1.75 work
units; seventh category, 2.00 work units. In January, when preparing
the production plan, the cooperative calculated the total number of
work units necessary to insure fulfillment of the production plan
and made an estimate of the value of the production. From the
estimated production value, the calculated production cost, not
including the salaries of members, was deducted; the result was
divided by the total number of work units, thus giving the value of
the work unit.
Each month the members received one-half the sum which represented
the value of the number of work units completed and was., in effect,
.a salary advance. The remaining salary due was paid at the end of
each year after final production results had been computed. Payment
in agricultural produce was made twice each year -- an advance after
harvest and the remainder at the end of the year. Payment in agricul-
tural produce usually was from .50 to .75 kg. of wheat per work unit;
the same amount for fodder gfain, such as barley; oats, rye, or maize;
two or three kilograms of potatoes per work unit; and a certain quanti-
ty, source could not recall the exact amount.,, of hay or green fodder
per work. unit, The average value of a. work unit was from 8 to 12
crowns,; this value was achieved an 80.per cent of the cooperatives.
Some, cooperatives averaged as much as i6 or 20 crowns per work unit;
although there were a. ls+o cooperatives': on..whic.Y the -value of the work
unit wa rowns.e For example, the coopera-
tive in paid 4.20 crowns per work unit in
1953. Even the payment of the average value of the work unit
resulted in a low monthly salary when one considers that the approxi-
mate total number of work units per year was from 300 to 400 units for
men working in the fields, from 150 to 220 work units for women
working in the fields;, 450 units for men or women working in the
stables, 550 work units for the agronomist, and a maximum of 600 work
units for the chairman.
The income of cooperatives continued to be low in spite of the fact
that the 1953 and 1954 bulk purchase prices for agricultural.produee,,
were higher than in previous years and the delivery quotas were
lower, thus enabling the cooperatives to sell their produce on the
retail market in larger quantities than had been possible previously.
The retail market prices were much higher than the bulk purchase
prices, e.g.,. 100 kg. of wheat sold for 90 crowns through bulk pur-
chases and for about 220 crowns directly to the consumer. In general,
retail prices were higher'than during the First Republic; however, the
quantity of produce which the cooperatives had available for the
retail market was still much lower than the amount required by the
delivery quota for bulk purchases. The low income was and continued
to be the main reason for farmers wishing to leave the cooperatives.
On the other hand, the lowest salaries of the cooperative members were
higher than the lowest salaries paid by the private farmers to their
domestics during the First Republic.
It was source's opinion that production on the cooperatives was from
15 to 20 per so.ent lower than the production achieved on the same land
by private farmers during 1948 and 1949. The decrease in production
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
 r A.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0
50X1
CONFIDENTIAL
-6-
was due both to the general situation in the countr4 and emphasis on
the application of Communist agricultural policies.
:17. In late summer 1953, the regime relaxed its efforts to collectivize
agriculture and concentrated on an attempt to increase agricultural
production. However, it was the general opinion among Agroprojekt
employees that this relaxation was due to the change in Moscow policy
which occurred with the appointment of Malenkov, rather than condi-
tions in Czechoslovak agriculture. Whatever the main reason may have
been, the farmers used the opportunity offered them by the regime and
left the cooperatives. The general "walk out" started shortly after
the 1953 harvest, increased during the winter of 1953-5)+, and was
resumed again after the''195)4 harvest. However, the 'walk out" did not
reach catastrophic proportions. Source was better informed about the
situation in Moravia than about the situation in Bohemia or Slovakia.
He believed that the total acreage of cooperatives in Moravia was
decreased by one-third of the size it had been in the summer of 1953.
In some cases, the acreage of a cooperative decreased from 200 to 30
hectares; yet, the total number of cooperatives did not change much
-- in only a few cases did all members of a cooperative leave with
the result that the cooperative was completely abolished. The CP
organs made every effort, by peaceful means, to keep alive even a
small part of each cooperative. Most of the cooperative members who
left were farmers with from approximately 5 to 13 hectares. In
general, the farmers with up to five hectares did not leave the
cooperatives because the majority of them were CP members and because
they did not have their own equipment to use. The majority of the
large farmers also remained members of the cooperatives because they
could not cultivate their fields without hiring laborers and the
hiring of farm labor continued to be impossible. This was also true
with regard to "kulak" cooperatives, The farmer who left a coopera-
tive was supposed to receive his land or.the equivalent acreage of
the same quality soil, his livestock, and his equipment. He actually
received the soil and the animals but rarely received his machinery
and equipment because it usually had deteriorated during the period
of his membership in the cooperative. It was very difficult to
replace equipment because agricultural machinery for use with horses
was not being produced and neither were spare parts.
8. The delimitation of the land was handled by personnel working with
the agricultural land adjustment program in offices of the regional
national committees which became agroprojekt regional centers in
April 1954, and by surveyors of the district national committees
who were incorporated, also in April 1954, into the Institute of
Goedesy and Cartography.
1.
3. I (Comment: The methods used by the CP for establishing coopera- 50X1
tives are not discussed in this report because it is felt that they
are sufficiently well known.
4.
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/05/30: CIA-RDP82-00046R000500100005-0