The relationship between people and their government at the local and state levels concerning property rights is decidedly one of the most fascinating and important ones for students of humanities, whatever historic era is under study. The concept of private property does exert an effect on both political regime and the rates of social evolution. What is more, it leaves unmistakable imprints on people's consciousness, sometimes in a particular way. The designated linkages can be revealed on a vivid fabric of Russian history, partly by examining the Bolshevik politics toward the relations of property.

What is chosen for this research, is massive confiscation of private property conducted by the Bolsheviks from late 1917 to early 1921. This action is analyzed in a broader context, as a particular aspect of property relations.

This study assumes that this activity of power was really a turning point in the fate of revolutionary Russia. The study of the confiscatory measures also includes shedding light on the peculiarities of the Russian historical pathway in the past, when people's representations of property were taking shape and incessantly modifying, and the subsequences of the Bolshevik manipulations.

The chief task of the first chapter is to explain of how the people's attitude towards private property engendered differences in opinion. The age-old Russian history is an example of how our ancestors developed a unique vision of the acceptable confines of private ownership.

There were four decisive identity-forming factors: 1) the environmental conditions, 2) traditions and norms of the peasant commune, 3) 'hydraulic state', and 4) the Orthodoxy influences by popular and pagan beliefs. These factors preordained the high value of the property accumulated by labor while the property as such was not of a value at all. This mental background played its part in the period of the mass consciousness crisis, which occurred on the eve of the Russian Revolution of 1905 and reached its climax after certain failures of the World War I. In the beginning of the twentieth century, the social stability and progress was not tied up with the inviolability of private property. As a result, the destructive representations in consciousness of marginal elements turned into numerous dangerous actions, such as seizing fields and estates of the landlords. The book sought to explain why the Bolsheviks succeeded in adopting their program to particular Russian conditions. Those layers of the population, which perceived the Bolshevik ideas with enormous passion, were not numerous but extraordinary active.

The proceeding six chapters contain analysis based on the structural approach, which explains the ways of property forfeiture. For this purpose, the archival records of different types were attracted, such as decrees, minutes, decisions, reports, mandates, correspondence etc. They are largely a result of grubbing around the regional archives of Belgorod, Kursk, Voronezh, Tver', Yaroslavl' and other regions.

A chain of permanent expropriations came in effect just after the October seizure of the state and lasted till March 1921, when the NEP (New Economical Policy) era commenced.

The material is structured according to the sorts of confiscated property. These are 1) agricultural land, 2) factories and plants, 3) lodgings; 4) food stuffs, 5) money, 6) household effects.

The wrightings devoted to the Russian revolution are mostly restricted by examining of the separate sorts of confiscatory measures, e.g. nationalization in industry or prodrazverstka (grain requisitioning expedition). This book, in contrast, attempts to present a generalized analysis of the Bolshevik confiscatory actions against private property. Indeed, the nationalization of large-scale property and taking away household effects are different by form but similar by content.

The overgrowth of the expropriation avalanche would be impossible if marginal elements did not support the Bolsheviks. Therefore, the Soviet government at the beginning of its rule concealed its true intensions concerning private property and yielded to the peasants' desire for the 'black' (i.e. overall) redistribution of all large-scale property.

It is stated in the book that the rate of the attack against property was in proportion to the degree of sanctioning by mass consciousness of every coercive action.

In the first post-October years the representations of what property could remain in own possession and what should be urgently transferred to public (i.e. state) property rapidly changed.

The first attack against property - the decree on land - was based on the necessity to satisfy age-old expectations of the poor Russians. The admissibility of the next step - the nationalization of enterprises and confiscation of dwelling space surpluses - was being affirmed throughout a longer period.

In regard to the right to own movable property, the owners were deprived of the foodstuff surpluses just after the October revolution. It was ostensibly done for a good purpose - to stave off mass famine. Meanwhile, the Bolshevik power failed--in spite of a number of brutal attempts--to urge people to refuse from their right to possess and dispose money and household effects. In order to reach this goal, it was necessary to impress people with the thought that right of ownership was given exceptionally in exchange for the popular allegiance to the state power and willingness to work much.

The most useful methods applied for this research were structural and comparative analyses. What was deemed as a starting point while examining manipulations with property, was a particular fact of property confiscation from a person by the state - the fact that was not brought to trial. Classifying these micro-events, one can find out some regularities and causalities. The structural principle, thus, takes an advantage upon the traditional chronology-based 'historicism', since it allows to reveal the peculiarities of mental history.

Almost all the historical records used in this work are of a local character. These reflect not only the succession of macro-historical events, but also people's and officials' reaction toward state power acting.

The use of primary sources taken from the regional archives aimed not only at building up a timeline of local history of towns, settlements and villages. It seems more valuable to define, whether some facts are unique or typical and to what extent these records reflect Russian social and mental history.

Each of six 'central' chapters begin with the initial remarks offering the interpretation of the reasons of some sort of property coming under the Bolshevik field of vision. The analysis of typology and dynamics of confiscatory measures include some parameters. These are:

The legal system for confiscatory actions. The decrees and laws passed by Lenin's Sovnarkom, VTsIK, Narkomats and other bodies of state power reflect the Bolshevik center's viewpoint on the expropriation policy. The matter is in the way in which a state agency initiated a certain action against property. On the other hand, it is discussed that the local authorities had to maneuver between democratic provisions of Soviet legislation and authoritarian demands of secret circulars issued by the central Bolshevik power.

Institutions conducting property forfeiture. The expropriation policy was exercised simultaneously by many state bodies. There were bodies with wide powers: Revkoms (revolutionary committees), Ispolkoms (executive committees), and others which emerged specially for this purpose: sovnarkhozes (Councils for people economy), kombeds (the Committees of the Poor Peasant), and so forth. The Red Army, militia, and Tcheka (Extraordinary commission) appropriated confiscatory powers as well. The book seeks to reveal the struggle between local bodies for extending their powers at each other's expense.

Motives and mechanisms of confiscatory actions. The records cited in this subchapter contain direct and indirect indications on what the Soviet officials ruled by when they conducted recurrent actions. In such a context, the sense of a primary source is of a greater value than the reason of the confiscation declared by the document's composer. In each six cases the gradation of the motives is charted in accordance with the supposed decrease of people's resistance.

Ways of property distribution. It was discovered that officials usually were not concerned about the most effective disposal of things, taken away from the population.

People's attitude towards confiscatory measures. The perception of property confiscation is shown through how it was seen by 1) soviet officials, 2) the sufferers, 3) those who were granted by the estates taken away from 'the former exploiters'.

Thus, this book examines the Bolshevik confiscaory actions against different sorts of property as a complex process conducted purposefully in order to strengthen the state power.

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.