Agrarian reform II: nationalisation

The existing inequality in land tenure from the period of independence was used to justify further land reform, which was done when Latvia was first occupied by Sovet Union in 1940. Whereby all land exceeding thirty hectares was nationalized and redistributed as ten-hectare farms to approximately 50,000 new farmers, and given as additional land to another 23,000 small farmers (Strods 1992).[…]  The market system, along with its organisation and efficiency was destroyed and instead the communist economy was introduced hastily - in 1 to 2 years.

State promised that there would be no kolkhozes, which turned out not to be true. Latvian farmers were familiar with the kolkhozes in the USSR, and knew that, although the USSR governments were constantly praising them, the farmers were complaining. Besides, collective farming was contrary to the centuries old tradition of segregated farms.

By means of propaganda people were persuaded to believe in the Marxist idea of class struggle, and the Soviet state promised to persecute and punish the wealthy and influential people who were declared enemies of the state. In June 1941 almost 17 000 people were deported (0,78% of the inhabitants of Latvia).[…]

Agricultural processes were dictated from above what to seed, when to seed, where to sell and for what price (state bought all the produce for extremely low prices). The lands were so small that it was not possible to survive. That, along with a new tax policy, forced farmers to "deliberately" join the kolkhozes.

During the Nazi German occupation from 1941 to 1944, land was once again returned to the pre-1940 owners. Farmers had to pay shares of their harvests to the Nazi government to support the war effort, and some lands were planned for colonization by German settlers. Because many young men were called into the German army, city workers from Riga had to provide six weeks of annual farm labor for the war effort. All the Soviet state property became the German state property. The larger farms got their properties back, as they were potentially the most loyal to the Germans, because they had suffered the most from the Stalinist repressions. Large scale germanisation was planned. Agriculture was even further destroyed, thousands of people died, emigrated or were deported.

The Soviets re-establish their power over the Latvian territory in 1944, one of the first reforms enacted was land use reform. They decided to give small plots of land (10-15ha) to the farmers without land, but many of them refused, wanting to avoid what they already experienced in 1941 having to work on small plots without houses and infrastructure. All farms larger than 30ha had to give the extra lands to the farmers without land.[…]

Overall, Soviet government tried to do everything possible to force Latvian farmers to join the collective farms, but the resistance of farmers' was strong. Ultimately all the farmers who had any paid employees in their farms were declared state enemies and prosecuted.

Although it was known that the private farms were more productive than the collective farms, the government proceeded with the order from Moscow towards collectivisation of agriculture. All family farms were nationalized and merged into large estate or collective farms (average size - about 5,000 ha of agricultural land)

In 1946, the first kolkhozes were founded (Nākotne, Sēlija, Uzvara, Dzirkstele). Also farmers cooperatives were forced to join.

In the fight against the "capitalist values", Soviet government used various strategies: the largest farms had to pay extremely high taxes, so eventually they couldn't survive; they had to deliver the state too much produce and if they failed to do so the farmer would be imprisoned or even killed. Propaganda blamed these farmers for all the failures that occurred during the introduction of collective farming. The increasing bureaucracy that came with the collective farming made it even less productive.

In 1949, as the last measure in the fight against the so-called "kulaks" (the wealthier class of farmers) Stalin ordered mass deportations. 43 000 people farmers with their families were deported to Siberia or killed.

Starting from 1950, administrative territorial reform changed the existing 26 administrative units (apriņķi) into 62 new units (rajoni). Also the first cycle of agricultural soil survey began. All agricultural soils were investigated and maps were made for every farm (state, collective, research, training, etc.) that was in operation at that time. Small land users in the rural areas (supplementary farms, cooperative orchards, recreation area, etc.) were included on the map of a neighbouring large farm.[…]

Collectivisation of agriculture was nearly finished. Farming was organised within 1776 kolkhozes. The system was kept in function by continuous further threats of persecutions. Farming was influenced adversely by the forced urbanisation - farmers were moved to the cities, while still working in the collective farms. The goal was to foster the collective mindset. The collective farming was extremely unproductive and up until 1955 most of the farmers (employees of the kolkhozes) survived only thanks to their veggie gardens.

All the statistical data about productivity of agriculture was falsified by the state to make people believe that the system worked, although it obviously didn't. The farms had to keep double accounting to be updated about the actual state, as opposed to the requested. The productivity in the collective farms was 50% less than in the pre-war period.

One of the reasons for the crisis was lack of specialised staff. 80% of the highly specialised farmers and people with degrees were politically repressed and deported. In 1967 only 1,8% of the chairmen of kolkhozes had a degree, 7,6% had finished secondary school, 27,3% had no education, only practical skills, and 3,5 % did not even have practical skills.[…]

In the 1950's and 1960's moving people from the countryside to villages continued even whole buildings were moved. It was also forbidden to build new buildings or renovate the existing ones in the countryside. New villages were intended for 300-500 inhabitants.

First communal multi-storey building projects in the villages were built in 1959. The plan was to move all the people from single homesteads to the villages, but the building process was much slower than expected, so the plan wasn't entirely executed.

Mass migration from Russia and other Soviet republics to Latvian countryside was encouraged in order to carry out russification. Migrants received subsidies for moving, for building houses and buying livestock.

During the 1970ies, the process of destruction of the traditional Latvian countryside continued.[…] Many of the homesteads were torn down, and the official excuse was that they obstructed the melioration process (although only a small part of the buildings effectively did). Some of the families got some compensation in money or building materials to build their houses in the new villages, but mostly it wasn't enough. So the people had to move in with their relatives or neighbours or go to the cities. In the villages there was not enough land for private use. Eventually people moved away from the country to the cities.

In 1972, the second soil mapping cycle when additional areas were included in agricultural production, due to the realisation of an extensive land reclamation programme.

The Latvian organic movement emerged in opposition to Soviet collective farming in the late 1980s. First Latvian farmers received rights to begin independent farms in the Soviet era, under a program initiated by the head of Latvian Soviet Council of ministers, Minister Breksis, in 1988. These first eight thousand farmers, called Brekša farmers, were granted heritable usufruct rights to land, as well as additional state support, to develop a competitive private farm sector to provide food alongside existing kolkhozs structures.[…] Agrarian reform after 1991 by the newly independent government restored property rights to pre-1940 owners, sometimes causing conflicts with those who had been granted usufruct rights a few years earlier.

A more advanced survey programme was started. It was intended to cover all Latvia but was completed only for the farms of 10 administrative regions and the activities were stopped because of economic constraints.