CHAPTER 5. CONFISCATION OF HOUSEHOLD BELONGINGS

The inclusion of household belongings into the continuous round of confiscations became possible, since property rights had finally lost their moorings. Part of the reason for this was neglect of the right to inviolability of the home.

The confiscatory measures against household things have not been studied carefully. Soviet historians avoided to carry out this issue, as they were unable to find a truthful ideologically based explanation for them. Present day Russian historians often point out that confiscation of household things occurred. Still, this issue has not yet been subjected to structural analysis.

It is known, that if people live in civil society, their property can be confiscated only in case of crime. Moreover, such a punishment may be held only in relation to crimes, which affect somebody's property rights. In the post-October era, we can see not just taking away household effects, but doing that together with painful search for ideological or legal explanation. Confiscation of household things was blessed by local bodies, not by the Bolshevik Center. It started not from a significant decree, but with the connivance of higher organs.

An attempt to regulate this sort of confiscation was made only once since 1920. In April 25th, a special decree on requisition and confiscation was passed. It was defined that requisition was to be made in return for a payment. The range of bodies deputed to perform confiscations was determined as well.

The probability of the avalanche of confiscations increased for those people who possessed many similar effects. There was an item in the Decree putting a ban on taking away household things. Meanwhile, it contained reserves that brought this ban to nothing. What is more, the local authorities of the Kursk region issued comments to the Decree where the mentioned item was interpreted in an absolutely contrary sense. They made clear that confiscations were permitted in case of cloth and foot-wear shortage in state storehouses, when the arrival of wounded men was expected. In which form--whether confiscation or requisition--the things would be taken away, depended on class affiliation. Confiscations were also admitted in cases of monasteries' or emigrants' households. Some years later, a Soviet lawyer Kurskiy said that the Decree had not established any property rights. Conversely, the ownership rights were not granted for even household things. Thus, the Soviet law on confiscation was of two-fold character: it aimed at both bringing the forfeiture actions to the order and depriving people of their property rights.

The confiscatory measures were conducted by various organizations. Besides the local Soviet bodies - Ispolkoms [Executive Committees] and Revkoms [Revolutionary Committees] - there were punitative troops and the Tcheka [Extraordinary Comission]. As different structures of administration shared their duties with each other, a rivalry among them for 'the plunder' was an often case to be observed.

The most justifying motive of confiscatory measures was suppression of offences against the state. But what was out of all proportion to the traditional legal system, was extremely broad range of punishments by property confiscation.

The first to be under suspicion were those who kept large amounts of similar things. Such things as arms, soldier's uniform and equipments were confiscated as well. It was prescribed that people had to pass these things to military authorities at their own free will. However, this request essentially sounded like a demand. Indeed, it contained provisions "to take away from the population the arms and equipment brought home by deserters, bought from Red Army soldiers or other men, or found by chance somewhere". Moreover, it was ordered to send the punitive troops to the countryside in order to prosecute those who concealed the things. It was also banned to keep products from non-ferrous metals in their households. All property of those who escaped to the White Guardian troops was liable to confiscation as well. The archival records reveal the mechanism by which Bolsheviks' confiscatory measures were held. In this respect, the act of search in the home of a citizen Jakovlev is of a great interest: "Because the wall of the store-room proved partly made from old and new brick, the commission decided to breach it, but when the wall was breached in two places, it was found nothing there."

Illegal purchase and sell of household things was also punished by confiscation of property. Since the state power became unable to make a complete break with the speculation by organizing the circulation of goods between town and country, some extraordinary measures seemed to be preferable. The Soviet powerholders sought to enforce their psychological pressure onto dealers of all sorts. For instance, an instruction for the local officials prescribed them "to detain those under suspicion, demand their documents, ask sudden questions: who are they, where are they from, why they came there?

Oddly enough, buyers were prosecuted no less than sellers. For example, in February 6th, 1918 on the market of the city of Ekaterinodar the Red Guards arrested a dweller Chebotarev who was accused of purchasing a fur-coat. It seems curious that the Bolsheviks ignored the lawfulness of all purchases made within the time of the White Guardian rule. This is to be considered as Bolsheviks' claim to omnipresence and inviolability of their laws overall Russian land. For example, a citizen Tulinov was called to account in accordance of this decree, being accused for 'illegal' purchase of a cupboard, whatnot, sofa, two pillows, six chairs, so on.

In that time, confiscations of household things might also be caused by evading military service in Red Army troops. The rulers put the responsibility for desertion on soldier's family, kin and 'accomplices', despite he was obviously of age. It also seems strange that the things were not in direct relation to the corpus delicti. Nevertheless, this sort of punishment was widely spread in the first post-October years.

Lists of the belongings confiscated for desertion demonstrate that the local Soviet officials not uncommonly acted arbitrarily. Confiscatory measures were held in a strikingly unequal fashion. So, different sorts of things were taken away from different people. There was a tablecloth, matches, a hat, a towel, or thread, and also cattle and food-supplies. Such a punishment was a sort of blackmail. The records prove this suggestion. Once the officials of some Ispolkom answered a request about the rightfulness of their confiscatory act in the following way: "It was noted to Tchekrychina that the things would be returned to her, provided she pointed where her son [a deserter] was".

Confiscatory actions might be also caused by evasion from cartage duty, brewing of illegal alcoholic drinks (samogon), failure of the bourgeoisie to appear for the registration, or suspicion in any political cases.

Once an Ispolkom wrote a reply on appeal of a citizen Balabanova: "In regard to brining an accusation against you, the Tcheka explains that you are accused in conspiracy against the Ispolkom members. Hence, the counter-revolutionaries should be wiped off the earth and their estates should be transferred into state ownership".

For lack of clear legislation, legal regulations in the Soviet state were often changed, and therefore it was impossible for people to remain law-abiding citizens. The punishment of wrongdoers was not the only goal of Bolsheviks' confiscatory actions, which served as well for satisfying basic requirements of the local authorities. In the first months after the October revolution, the Revkoms and Ispolkoms obtained means of subsistence by imposing new and new taxes and contributions [extra-taxes taken from rich people]. Meanwhile, the money was gradually losing its purchasing power with time, hence the local authorities--especially military department--turned to supplying themselves with belongings taken from the population. In July 1918, a regiment commander forwarded a petition to the Ispolkom: "I ask for the requisition of three tables and ten chairs [from the population], extremely needed for my headquarter". A passage from another record is of the same tone: "I prescribe you to take away 40 bathes from the population".

The sense of requisitions was to bar the purchase of goods by organizations from the dealers - the so called speculants - at market prices. In order to receive a mandate for requisition, an explanation of requirements was needed. In November 1920, a military leader asked the Ispolkom to document the requisition of five kerosene lamps in the marketplace. This request was motivated by the following passage: "it seems impossible for the headquarter office to operate rapidly".

The need of organizations in certain things was fulfilled by confiscatory measures not only by one-time actions but also by special campaign drives. The most large-scale action was collecting warm clothing among people in favor of the Red Army. This was conducted every winter from 1917 to 1920 by compulsion together with mighty ideological attack. The Bolshevik power sought to impress people with the thought that "gifts" for the army would precipitate victory and therefore they would lead to long-expected peacetime.

Short-term taking away of some household belongings by Soviet authorities from the population was less painful against a background of permanent confiscations. The Bolsheviks termed these actions 'mobilization', meaning that things like people had to serve the state. Meanwhile, the local authorities assumed the right to decide whether the restitution of taken off things was needed.

A campaign of taking away jewelry was launched as a stop-gap measure on February 1918. Among the confiscated things were cups, saucers, spoons, forks, tea-strainers and the like. Such measures were conditioned by an anxiety that the things would be seized by the German troops, which were on the offensive at that time. However, when the threat was over, the confiscated things became returned to their prior owners, except former landlords.

The requirements of the state in some household belongings increased rapidly over time. While the Bolshevik rulers initiated confiscations of things, their ultimate goal was not only making break with wrongdoers and fulfilling the basic needs of their institutions. They waged a struggle against private property as such.

The landlords were the first to be deprived of their rights to dispose property. In a short time, the Bolshevik state desired to become the supreme owner of all personal things. In particular, some archival records attest to the rights of some certain institutions to take away all the things valuable for museums.

Before people finally lost their property rights, the Bolshevik local authorities began to conduct suspended forfeiture of things. In this case, the property remained in hands of the owners, but the officials were able to (ab)use their eminent domain powers at any time. This way, in accordance to an order of the Ispolkom of Kurskaja Gubernia (the Kursk province), it was banned to move out from houses all the privately-owned furniture. This measure was not motivated by the barest necessity; but the authorities vaguely pointed out to the crisis in the woodworking industry.

After all, some facts attest to overt unmotivated confiscation actions in favor of the state. The civil servants, looking at the actions held by the militaries, began to consider their agency not less important and responsible. In October 1918, the chairman of an Ispolkom gave the following certificate: "This is given to comrade Lysenko who is allowed to take a writing-table, cupboards and chairs from the citizen Arsenev".

People whose property was liable to forfeit were chosen arbitrarily. In April 1919, the Soviet officials inspected premises in the house of Shaposhnikov and uncovered there 20 poods of alabaster. The latter was put in requisition "for needs of the military commissar". The master of the house had to obey, although he was not considered a wrongdoer. In some cases, the mandates for requisition did not specify at all, where namely it should be conducted, so, the choice of certain household was left at the discretion of an official.

If you involved in a close field or simply have some interest in the charted problems, please do not hesitate to contact me. I would like to maintain cooperation with you.
E-mail: kharchenko@bsu.edu.ru.
The author should be much obliged for challenges, comments and corrections.