Lázár Vilmos szerk.: Termelőszövetkezettörténeti tanulmányok 1. (Mezőgazdaságtörténeti tanulmányok 6. Magyar Mezőgazdasági Múzeum, Budapest, 1972)

Összefoglaló (angolul)

The gross income of cooperative farms increased. From this not only the members and employees were given more from year to year, but essentially more could be allocated to the development of the collective farm and for social and cultural purposes as well. About 45 per cent of the investments were covered by the cooperative farms from their own resources. The instrument supply improved considerably. The technics and technology of production took on a large-scale character in several branches of plant growing and animal breeding. The foundation of an up-to-date anomal keeping was laid in this period in a large proportion of the cooperatives. Cooperative gross income and its utilization (million Ft) 1964 1967 1968 1969 1970 Gross income 22,1 22,3 26,7 21,8 Share of members 9.4 11,3 13,2 14,7 14,2 Wage of employees 1,0 2,5 2,8 3,3 3,1 Development funds 3,2 4,5 4.5 6.3 3.6 Social-cultural funds 0,2 0,5 0,6 0,8 0,8 Since the completion of collectivization cooperative production and management has shown an upward trend. This trend is. however still rather uneven. Important branches of production habe been left aut of the development, essential characters of management — particularly the efficiency of fixed assets — have remained unfavourable. On the whole the development is vigorous and its solid foundation has already been laid in the majority of farms. The condition of their further advancement is the consolidation of the economic bases ot their independence and of the democratic features of their autonomy. Peter HALÄSZ has elaborated the more than twenty years history of the "ÜTTÖRÖ" (Pioneer) Cooperative Farm of Makó. In Makó already in 1948 more than ten cooperative tenantgroups came into existence, and the first cooperative farm of the town was formed from them in Februar 1949 — under the name of "Pioneer". In its early establishment two substantial circumstances played a role: the fairly strong cooperative traditions and the lack of land existing also after the land distribution. In the first two years the Cooperative Farm — compared to its primitive conditions — worked successfully and the foundation members united into a true human collective. This promisign undertaking was strongly thrown back by the collectivization campaign put through in 1951—52, because in many cases the new members not brought by their own conviction into the Cooperative Farm. In two years the number of members increased nearly twentyfold and the collective area became almost twentyfive times as large as it was before. Serious difficulties were caused by this forced growth, because it was impossible to draw-up plans and the performance of current operations encountered likewise heavy im-