Socio-Economic and Socio-Cultural Transformations in Podillia Countryside during the 1950s–1960s (based on Melnykivtsi)

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to substantiate the socio-economic and socio-cultural transformations in the Podillia countryside in the 1950s and 1960s, using the example of a specific micro-historical study. The research methodology includes both special-historical and interdisciplinary methods. Among the special methods, one should point out first of all the method of historiographical analysis, thanks to which the state of scientific study of the problem is revealed. The problem-chronological method made it possible to divide the research topic into narrow problems and consider them in chronological order. Comparative aspects of transformations in the Podilsk village in the post-war period are performed in the context of the comparative-historical method. Scientific novelty is determined by the fact that the specified topic was not the subject of a special scientific study, as well as the author's attempt to solve the problem based on the materials of a specific microhistorical study. Conclusions. The death of the leader and the change of political leadership put an end to Stalin's agrarian policy, which was based on administrative non-economic coercion, ignoring the basic economic laws, and the purposeful constant draining of material resources from agriculture. The reforms of the agrarian sector of the first half of the 1950s, which were designed to reduce the command and administrative influence on the management of collective farms and increase the latter's initiatives regarding the scale of planning and growing products, generally contributed to the rise of agriculture and some improvement of the situation of the collective farm peasantry in Podilly. The increase in grain yield made it possible not only to intensify the development of the livestock industry and purchase the necessary agricultural machinery, but also to accumulate a certain share of money for the payment of salaries to collective farmers. The policy of consolidation of collective farms not only did not lead to fundamental changes in the organization and technology of production, but also had long-term destructive consequences. United farms became poorly managed, and collective farm workers became more alienated from each other. There was a narrowing of the elements of collective farm democracy and the alienation of the peasantry from the land. Certain successes of collective farm construction and some improvement in the material well-being of the villagers did not affect the improvement of the cultural and educational sphere of the Podil village. Rural schools and clubs, which were considered as centers for the introduction of communist ideology and morality into the peasant environment and were called to change the outlook and influence the spiritual life of the peasantry, were for a long time in unsuitable premises that did not meet sanitary and hygienic standards. The state proposed to build new educational and cultural institutions at the expense of collective farms or the peasants themselves. Peasants often complained about the insufficient level of medical care. Paramedics and midwives were located in unsuitable premises, there was a lack of experienced specialists, and the allocated funds were not enough for the purchase of medicines. In the second half of the 1960s, work on infrastructure development and improvement of the Podil village was intensified. However, due to the lack of state subsidies, the successes were insignificant. Most of the settlements did not have paved roads. The houses of the villagers remained unelectrified for a long time. Provision of food and industrial goods to the peasants was carried out according to the residual principle. Attempts by the peasants to leave the village and move to the city were not successful, as the collective farm was not interested in losing the workforce.