January 6th, 2016
Over the past week, the topic of “enslaving” collective farmers by the USSR authorities through the passport system has come up twice in different discussions. Briefly, the essence of this myth is this: the Soviet government mercilessly exploited the peasantry, forcing them to feed the urban population, while prohibiting rural residents from leaving their place of residence under pain of criminal charges, and in order to achieve their disgusting goal, the authorities did not issue passports to collective farmers until 1974, and without passports, supporters of this myth claim, the villager could not go anywhere - at most, until the first check of documents by law enforcement officials.
Yes, there is such a fact - many residents of rural areas received a passport only in 1974, when the corresponding number 677 was issued. It was after the adoption of this document that passporting became mandatory and universal, regardless of place of residence. Why weren’t the villagers given passports before? Let's look into it in detail.
And we will start from afar, or rather, from 1923. It was then that the DECREE of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR DATED 06.20.1923 ON IDENTITY CERTIFICATES was issued. You can read the text yourself, but I will briefly say: this decree does not say a word that there are any restrictions for residents of rural areas. In addition, the decree is only gives the right get an ID card and does not oblige you to do this.
The next important document regarding passportization was adopted in 1932 - the Resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated December 27, 1932 "On the establishment of a unified passport system." This resolution was adopted “In order to better account for the population of cities, workers’ settlements and new buildings and to relieve these populated areas from persons not associated with production and work in institutions or schools and not engaged in socially useful work (with the exception of the disabled and pensioners), and also in order to cleanse these populated areas from hiding kulak, criminal and other antisocial elements." As you can see, it clearly states in which settlements passports are required (“the population of cities, workers’ settlements and new buildings”) and why they are being introduced, but there is no indication of a ban on issuing passports to the rural population.
The question arises: why were passports introduced for cities, workers' settlements and new buildings, while villages and villages were left without attention? This can be explained simply: industrialization began, tens of thousands of people poured into cities and new buildings, but at the same time all kinds of criminal or anti-Soviet elements also poured in - it was easier for both to get lost in the crowd, because people came from a variety of places, no one knew each other didn’t know, and new faces could easily blend in with the masses of workers and do their own illegal things, including both ordinary theft and sabotage in production - on the eve of the war this was a fairly common occurrence. In villages and villages, the way of life was different - there, as a rule, people knew each other well, so every new face was visible. Passport control was not required here.
By the way, the passports looked like this:
Subsequently, clarifying resolutions were issued, such as, for example, RESOLUTION No. 2193 of September 19, 1934 “ON REGISTRATION OF PASSPORTS OF COLLECTIVE FARMERS AND OTKHODNIK ENTERING WORK IN ENTERPRISES WITHOUT CONTRACTS WITH HOUSEHOLD ORGANIZATIONS” - it concerned collective farmers leaving their own collective farm in those areas where were already passportized, or the DECREE of June 10, 1939 “ON THE ISSUANCE OF PASSPORTS TO PERSONS LIVING IN MINING VILLAGES,” introducing control over the population in the areas of coal mines (now they were equated to regime areas).
In general, as we see, peasants lived quite freely even without passports - a certificate from the village council or the collective farm board was enough. But perhaps it was at this level of government that restrictions were established? It is logical to assume that the collective farm chairman is unlikely to want to send a good worker to the city. And, of course, such facts took place. How did the Soviet government react? Reading.
The Council of People's Commissars of the USSR decides:
1. Resolutely prohibit local authorities and collective farm organizations from in any way preventing the departure of peasants, including collective farmers, to waste trades and seasonal work (construction work, logging, fishing, etc.).
2. District and regional executive committees, under the personal responsibility of their chairmen, are obliged to immediately establish strict monitoring of the implementation of this resolution, bringing its violators to criminal liability.
Oh how! Up to and including criminal liability. As we can see, the Soviet authorities strictly ensured that even at the local level, there were no obstacles for rural residents to move to the cities - the cities needed workers, without them factories could neither be built nor begin producing products.
Finally, just on the eve of the war, a new DECISION of September 10, 1940 N 1667 “ON APPROVAL OF THE REGULATIONS ON PASSPORTS” was issued. Here the war is already at the door, and therefore the list of regions subject to mandatory passportization is expanding:
All citizens of the USSR over the age of 16, permanently residing in cities, workers' settlements, regional centers, settlements where MTS are located; in all settlements of the Moscow region; in all settlements of a 100-kilometer strip around Leningrad and a 50-kilometer strip around Kyiv; in all populated areas within the restricted border zones established by the Government of the USSR and the border strip along the entire border of the USSR, as well as those working on new buildings, water and railway transport and on state farms, are required to have passports.
The new Regulations also concerned passportization in the territory of the former Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Again, there are no obstacles for collective farmers and villagers in this Regulation.
The next important document dates back to 1953. This is Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of October 21, 1953 N 2666-1124. Unfortunately, for some reason the text is not publicly available - only excerpts relating to punishment for violating the passport regime are found. We will return to this problem a little later.
Recent Posts from This Journal
WAS THERE A GENOCIDE OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE IN THE USSR?The brightest political show of 2019! First SVTV club debate. Topic: “Was there genocide of the Russian people in the Soviet Union?” They are debating Russian...
M.V. POPOV VS B.V. YULIN - Fascism for exportDebate on the topic “Fascism for export” between Professor Popov and military historian Yulin Vote about who won in your opinion...
A little girl cries for the USSR: Everything was real in the Soviet Union
Dead ends of the capitalist economyA crisis is the right time to get rid of illusions born during a period of stability, when it seemed that everything real was reasonable, and everything...
Lyskov Dmitry 04/24/2019 at 20:39
In 2008, the TV Center channel aired a youth talk show on the topic “Does communism have a future?” Doctor of Historical Sciences, member of the human rights society "Memorial" Irina Shcherbakova, a researcher, in her words, of the Soviet period, acted as a specially invited historian. The Memorial Society itself has long and fruitfully been engaged in writing the history of repression in the USSR, using its own, not fully understandable to the common man and very controversial methodology, suggestive of ideological predetermination.
As a separate “killer” argument proving the inhumane nature of the Soviet project, the researcher spoke about the fate of the peasants - even passports were issued to collective farmers in the USSR only in 1974. The doctor urged people to think about this glaring fact - before this, they say, the labor of peasants was used almost as slave labor on plantations.
The statement had a definite effect. Many in the studio, it turns out, didn’t even know about this (they hadn’t read the perestroika-era “Ogonyok” due to their youth) and were sincerely horrified: how could this be?! At the same time, it did not occur to anyone to ask the historian what exactly did the peasants without a passport suffer from? For example, people live in the USA without passports, and nothing. What exactly were the Soviet citizens deprived of, deprived of their “crust”?
For some reason, the doctor herself forgot to mention this, and no one in the studio reminded me either, but it would have been worth it, because if you take on a problem, you should consider it comprehensively, and not create an ideological bogeyman out of it. Now, of course, it is difficult to imagine life without a passport, document checks on the street (by the way, a child of democracy, unthinkable in the USSR), air tickets, a clinic and much more - everything is tied to the citizen’s main document.
But passports didn’t always exist. This means that the attitude towards them and the need for their use were different at different times. It is absurd to be indignant, for example, at the lack of foreign passports among the rural population of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century - entire generations of our ancestors spent their entire lives in one village, outside the outskirts, in the nearest grove, the world began with a capital letter, and a trip to a fair in the county center was a universal event, They had been preparing for it for months.
Actually, the passport system we are familiar with today did not exist at all until the 20th century. Since the 15th century, in Germany, and then in other European countries, the passport appeared in the form of a “travel document” and served the purpose of separating wealthy travelers from vagabonds and robbers. There were “plague passports” (for residents of plague-ridden territories to prevent the spread of the disease), “military passports” (for catching deserters).
During the Time of Troubles, a “travel certificate” appeared in Russia, and under Peter I, “travel certificates” became mandatory for travelers - this was due to the introduction of conscription and poll tax. Later, the passport began to be used as a kind of “tax return”; the payment of taxes or taxes was noted in it with special marks. A passport was not needed at the place of residence; one should have been obtained only when leaving 50 miles from home and for a period of more than 6 months.
It only needs to be added that only men received passports; women were included in their spouse’s passport. The entry in the Russian passport of the 1912 model looked like this: “He has his wife Efrosinya, 20 years old.”
Thus, we see that until 1917, passports both in Russia and in Europe were by no means a mass document; their role gradually changed, but still was reduced mainly to a “travel certificate”, that is, a document certifying a person’s good morals and law-abidingness who left their place of residence.
This problem can be looked at from the other side; thus, liberal researchers assess the role of the passport as a tool of a “police state” that introduces control over a citizen and restricts his freedom of movement. The passport system makes a person dependent on the official who issues the passport, which does not exclude bureaucratic arbitrariness in relation to a particular individual. In this sense, the ideal is considered to be the United States, where an internal passport system has never existed.
“France became the founder of a unified passport system for the entire population of the country. This happened during the Great French Revolution of 1789-1799. With the introduction and strengthening of this system, the concept of a “police state” arose, which strictly controls citizens.”, writes the team of authors of the liberal project “School is a legal space” in the methodological manual “The right to life, freedom, property. Conversations between a teacher and 8th grade students.”
From this point of view, it becomes completely unclear what the crime of the communists was, leaving peasants without passports until the second half of the 20th century. Shouldn't it, on the contrary, be considered a crime to issue them passports in 1974? However, let’s not get ahead of ourselves, let’s deal with Irina Shcherbakova’s passport problem to the end.
Let's find out how the situation arose in which a significant part of the USSR population found itself without passports. It would seem that the Soviet regime should have immediately enslaved its citizens according to the French scenario - after all, volumes have been written and hundreds of hours of television programs have been filmed about the Red Terror, total control, and the Bolsheviks who came to power at bayonets.
However, surprisingly, the Bolsheviks did not restore the passport system of Tsarist Russia and did not create their own. During the first 15 years of Soviet power in the RSFSR, and then in the USSR, there was no single passport at all. The restoration of the passport system began only in 1932, when the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution "On the establishment of a unified passport system in the USSR and the mandatory registration of passports."
The resolution specifies the reasons for certification: " Establish a unified passport system throughout the USSR based on the regulations on passports" - "In order to better account for the population of cities, workers' settlements and new buildings and to relieve these populated areas from persons not associated with production and work in institutions or schools and not engaged in socially useful labor (except for the disabled and pensioners), as well as for the purpose of clearing these populated areas places from hiding kulak, criminal and other antisocial elements".
The document indicates the priority of certification - " covering primarily the population of Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kyiv, Odessa... [further list of cities]"and the errand" the governments of the union republics to bring their legislation into conformity with this resolution and the regulations on passports ".
If you read the document, it becomes clear that passports were introduced primarily to record the population of cities and workers’ settlements, as well as to combat crime. The document did not provide for the introduction of passports in rural areas at all (however, it was not denied). At the same time, it is unlikely that anyone will challenge the disparate crime situation between the city and the countryside - the indicators are clearly not in the city’s favor. The village in the USSR was born with one local policeman from local residents.
Certification, both for the purpose of registering the population and for the purpose of fighting crime, introduced the concept of “registration at the place of residence.” A similar control tool - with cosmetic changes - has been preserved in Russia to this day under the name "registration". It still causes a lot of controversy, but few doubt its effectiveness in fighting crime.
Registration (or registration) is a tool for preventing uncontrolled migration of the population; in this regard, the Soviet passport code is a direct descendant of the pre-revolutionary and generally European passport system; as we see, the Bolsheviks did not invent anything new.
Actually, the childishly naive demands of Academician Sakharov to allow free immigration from Afghanistan to the USSR for the sake of the triumph of democracy could still inspire certain segments of the population in the 80s. Now people who experienced “democracy” in the 90s no longer need to explain the meaning and purpose of restrictive measures on the part of the Soviet authorities.
However, it is precisely the lack of freedom of movement that supporters of the “offended collective farmers” of the USSR period still refer to. “But here’s what’s interesting,” write the authors of the textbook “Conversations between a teacher and 8th grade students” already cited above: passports were introduced only for residents of cities, workers’ settlements and state farms. The peasants, who began to be called collective farmers, were even deprived of the right to have a passport. And without it, they found themselves chained to their village, to their collective farm, they could not freely go to the city, since it was impossible to live there without registration.”
The article about collective farms from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, brings the situation to the point of complete absurdity: " When the passport system was introduced in the USSR in 1932, collective farmers were not issued passports so that they could not move to the cities. To escape from the village, collective farmers entered higher educational institutions and pursued a military career".
Just think what the totalitarian Soviet regime brought the ordinary peasant to: he forced him to enter universities and pursue a military career! How did they get into universities without a passport?
It turns out it's elementary. Those wishing to study at a vocational school, enter college, “pursue a military career,” work in newly created enterprises, etc., were still issued passports. There was a certain problem of “just moving to the city” - for two reasons, and both depended not on the presence of a passport, but on the presence of the institution of registration. The state considered it its responsibility to provide every person with housing and a job. The workplace, in addition, required a certain qualification (and here anyone could improve their qualifications at a school or university, there were no restrictions).
Without work and housing, where will a “just arrived” person without qualifications and education go? Actually, we see this every hour on the streets of Moscow - with Tajiks living in garbage chute bunkers, numerous homeless people and beggars who agree to any kind of work, including criminal work. Yes, there is free economic migration, and everyone can, having sold a house in the village, try their luck in the capital - for example, to join the number of beggars at the Kursky station.
Perhaps the Soviet system will seem inhumane to many, deprived of freedom and too organized. But the alternative is before our eyes, we have the opportunity to compare. Which system is more humane - one that provides guaranteed housing and employment, or an ephemeral “dream of success” - everyone decides for himself.
Stories pop up here and there from time to time about “collective farm slavery of passportless peasants” under Stalin. As is usual among the general public, there is little knowledge, even less understanding, but the howl is worth it - mother, don’t worry. But what happened there under Stalin?
Background of the issue
Having come to power, the Bolsheviks abolished passports. Complete freedom: live who you want and where you want. True, the cities quickly became filled with criminal, idle and simply asocial elements. Managing the city economy when it is not known how many people live in the city is also somewhat difficult. There was crime - wow. Therefore, it was decided to sort it out and restore order. But first we need to take a step back.
In the village-city relationship, the migration balance is always in favor of the city. The situation changes only under extraordinary circumstances: famine, epidemic, war. In medieval Europe, the population fled the cities to escape the plague. Or in Russia during the Civil War there was an outflow of the urban population to the countryside due to hunger. In Germany during World War II, city dwellers moved to the countryside to escape bombing.
At the end of the 20s, the USSR was an agricultural country in which the majority of the population (more than 80%) were peasants. The leadership set a course for collectivization and industrialization. One is inseparable from the other.
Collectivization.
The village was an ocean of small farms. Extremely ineffective. Management was carried out at the level of the times of Ivan the Terrible: plowing with a plow, hand sowing, harvesting by hand (with a scythe, or even with a sickle), storing the crop in a barn, transporting it by cart. Marketability was exceptionally low, lower than in 1917, the fourth year of the debilitating war that ended the Empire. Most of the products produced in the countryside were consumed there. Collectivization made it possible to increase the efficiency of agriculture and increase the marketability of production. And at the same time - to relieve the village of a huge number of people.
Industrialization.
The urban population, due to its small size, was physically unable to satisfy the needs of the emerging industry for workers. It would seem that it would make sense for the villainous Bolsheviks, who wanted to enslave the peasants and carry out the flow of labor from one sector of the national economy to another under the watchful supervision, to first introduce a passport system, tie the peasants to the land, and only then organize migration under strict control. According to the organizational set (we will talk about it later). In reality, this was not at all the case: collectivization and industrialization began without any passport systems. In the first five-year plan there were no passports.
Organbor.
He's a recruiter. You can often hear that this was practically the only way for an undocumented peasant to leave the village. Lies. In reality, things were like this: it was impossible for industrial giants such as the Kuznetsk or Norilsk plants to recruit the required number of workers on their own - the areas around them were sparsely populated. Just recruit throughout the country. Therefore, the People's Commissariat of Labor came to the aid of enterprises. He helped with the organizational set. But here’s the thing: organizational recruitment is not a cheap pleasure. The costs of organizing and conducting it were borne by the enterprise itself. The industry giants had no choice - you can’t recruit people on your own (on your own), but many enterprises that were not in such a peak position began to independently abandon organizational recruitment and recruit workers exclusively “by gravity.” The set was “gravity flow” from the very beginning. It was not prohibited either at the beginning or even in 1940, when unauthorized departure and transition were prohibited. It was never forbidden to hire new employees. For example, yesterday's school graduate himself chose where to go, and no one forbade the plant that he chose to hire a new employee on its own.
the enterprise itself decided how to recruit people. An even more important point: starting from the second five-year plan, just when the passport system began to operate, the activity of organizational recruitment decreased. More and more people (mostly those same undocumented peasants) began to get a job “on their own”: they came to a plant/factory and got a job.
The howlers don’t know about this, but this fact, it’s worth noting, doesn’t fit into the concept of “they tied the peasants to the land, the whole movement is strictly organized, under the control of the authorities.”
So, what were the results of the first five-year plan? Millions of peasants went into industry. Millions more were needed. Industrialization continued. At the same time, purely negative phenomena were also observed: the cities were literally swarming with criminals and simply dubious personalities. In addition to the fact that crime has flourished, the problems of managing the city economy have also risen to the fore.
To live permanently in the city, it became mandatory to have a passport. Reasons for obtaining a passport: have a job, housing, study in the city. The carried out passportization dramatically improved the health of the cities: non-working elements, criminals and other riffraff (professional beggars, people without specific occupations, gypsies, etc.) either left the cities themselves or were expelled. In the village, there is no need for passports: everyone is visible, everyone knows everything about everyone.
But what about the peasants who are not “happy” with passports? They say they were confined to the village by the lack of passports. This is a lie.
Firstly, it is worth understanding that “no passport” ≠ “no documents”. There were just documents. Identity cards, collective farmer's books, certificates, metrics - there were enough documents.
Secondly, It is worth knowing that peasants with documents constantly arrived in the cities for their needs: to sell something, buy something, visit relatives, etc. A trip to the city is not an extraordinary event, but a routine one. Peasants constantly traveled to cities and, accordingly, constantly received certificates in their villages. By the way, in winter, when there was nothing much to do in the village, many “chained to the land” peasants without passports left for part-time work in the cities. For months.
Third, In order to become a citizen, a passport was not required. Get a job, go to school – and live legally. From the city people they asked for passports, from the village people they asked for other documents. A certificate was enough. Citizens who are not overly burdened with knowledge claim that it was possible to obtain a certificate only, they say, with the written permission of the collective farm chairman. This is a lie.
Firstly, not all villagers were collective farmers. For example, a teacher sent to a rural school before the introduction of the passport system is a villager without a passport, but not a collective farmer. Her salary is paid by the People's Commissariat (Ministry) of Education, not the collective farm. Accordingly, the collective farm chairman is not her boss. Plus, there were also individual farmers.
Secondly, there were two forms of certificates: from the collective farm and from the village council. It's different. A collective farm is, in fact, a cooperative. Where the government is elected by the peasants themselves. A collective farm at its core is a company, an enterprise. Not government, no. But the village council is an organ of Soviet power. It is recommended not to confuse them. The collective farm refers only to collective farmers, the village council - to all villagers, since citizens are everyone. The body of Soviet power was not subordinate to the non-state company “kolkhoz”. They are on their own. One does not control the other. The collective farmer is related not only to the collective farm, but also to Soviet power. And even, first of all, to Soviet power. Because he is a citizen of the USSR.
Certificates were issued both there and there. They gave information easily. Have there been any cases of tyranny? When were the documents clamped? Yes, they did. Just don’t pass them off as a system: industrialization continued in the country, the authorities needed peasant workers in industry, because there was no alternative to the peasants. The chairman of the collective farm is the same king and god as the general director of the company is now. Now, just like then, they may not let you go, say, on vacation or to study (we won’t sign a bypass, won’t issue a work permit), when, for example, deadlines are running out, there is no replacement, etc. Either work or quit altogether. And pay it off. It was the same then.
So, the peasant came to the city with documents and got a job. The industry needed workers, and peasants were willingly hired. Having got a job and received a hostel (or settled with city relatives, if possible), yesterday’s peasant became a city dweller and received a passport with registration.
migration was limited not by supposedly “keeping peasants in the countryside,” but by the ability of cities to receive new residents.
You work, study, have a place to live - welcome. The authorities did not intend to produce a non-working element. Actually, just look at the statistics: peasants moved to cities in the millions. Balance:
1927–1938 - 18.7 million
1939–1958 - 24.6 million
1959–1970 - 16.4 million
This is just a balance. It is worth understanding that there were even more people who actually moved to the cities. Since there was a flow of specialists from the city: doctors, teachers, machine operators, agronomists, livestock specialists, etc. Even at the end of the 60s, when large-scale industrialization had long been completed (and according to the stories of the howlers, most of the peasants did not have passports until 1974, therefore they were “serfs”), during 1968-69 4.4 people moved to the city from the village million people, from cities to villages – 1.7 million. By the way, during the same time, another 2.5 million “serfs” moved from one rural administrative region to another. Closing the road to the city for peasants due to the lack of passports (without which, supposedly, you cannot get a job) is an ordinary lie. There were so many new vacancies in the country that passport holders (an absolute minority of the population, by the way) obviously could not fill them. There was no point in keeping a lot of people in the countryside when the industry needed millions of workers. After all, what actually changed with the introduction of the institution of registration and passport system? The free spirit has disappeared: “I live anywhere based only on my own desire and nothing more.” To live in the city, legal grounds became mandatory. Work, study. Characteristically, the freemen disappeared for everyone. A resident, for example, of Kazan, could not move to live, say, in Saratov “just like that,” just because he wants to live in Saratov. Even with a passport. The passport system and the institution of registration limited all citizens of the country, not just peasants. The restrictions, it should be noted, were quite reasonable. The choice between the option “people who have jobs and have a place to live live in the city” and the option “anyone lives in the city” is quite obvious even from a layman’s point of view. Those interested can estimate for themselves the difference between “20 gypsies without a specific occupation settled in the next apartment” and “only citizens with jobs can live in the next apartment, and not in any numbers.”
It is worth mentioning separately about studies. Some argue that here, too, the insidious Bolsheviks put a spoke in the wheels of the collective farmers. The peasants were, if anyone remembers, one of the two privileged classes. Together with the workers. The Soviet government, we must give it its due, really did a lot to raise the cultural and educational level of the backward layers of the population. The origin itself was a bonus due to the “class proximity” of the peasants and the Soviet regime. Moreover: there was a completely official system of benefits for those entering educational institutions. Not only for peasants. For working youth sent from enterprises, orphans, demobilized from the army, etc. In the union republics also for national personnel. Basically, yesterday's peasants went to simpler institutions: technical schools, honeys, peds, etc. But they also entered academies and even universities. Those same “disenfranchised, passportless” peasants.
Many are concerned about the issue of criminal prosecution of collective farmers. How did this go? The passport regime was for everyone. The first violation of the passport regime did not entail criminal liability for anyone. There really was a difference between a citizen without a passport and a citizen with a passport: at first both were fined, but the person without a passport was also sent back. They sent us out unpretentiously: under our own power. A fine, a certificate, an order to arrive at your place of residence in your native village by a certain date. Further: the second violation of the passport regime entailed criminal liability for everyone. For all. Regardless of passport/non-passport status. Up to two years in prison. Those inexperienced in the work of inquiry/investigation may be sold the following story: they say, an unpassported collective farmer could have been swept up and thrown into a special distribution center (bomzhatnik) for a month. And in general, they say, a collective farmer is a potential bearer of a “stick” for city police officers. Important clarification:A citizen with documents (be it a passport holder with a residence permit from another city or a collective farmer with an expired certificate) cannot be shoved into a homeless shelter. An administrative protocol and a fine for violating the passport regime are drawn up. There is no reason to initiate a criminal case . Unless it's a relapse, of course. A city detainee without documents was checked by the TsAB (central address bureau), a rural person - by the OAB (regional). Then proceed in the usual manner (see above). Now, if there was no data on the citizen, then there really is a homeless person and finding out who he is. But this is about homeless people, that’s another story.
Misconceptions and howls about “serfdom” most often have a simple basis: incorrect extrapolation of the current situation with passports to the Stalin era. Now, for example, you can’t even buy a ticket for a steam locomotive without a passport. Back then you didn’t need a passport to travel. The passport system and the institution of registration restricted all citizens of the USSR. Everyone. No one had the freedom to live wherever they wanted, solely on the basis of their own desire. A person with a passport upon arrival in another city was just as obliged to register within 24 hours as a person without a passport. Likewise, he did not have the right to stay in another city without reason for more than 30 days. The Criminal Code applied to everyone.
The bottom line:stories about “serfdom”, “slavery”, etc. are not confirmed by reality. In reality, tens of millions of undocumented villagers moved to cities. It is better to leave the fables that the Bolsheviks tried to attach the peasants to the land, but the cunning peasants found loopholes in “serfdom.” Tens of millions of people who have moved to cities are not the result of the myopia of the authorities, who missed alleged holes in the legislation, but the result of a deliberate policy.
In 1974, they finally decided to issue passports to rural residents of the USSR, although they were prohibited from being accepted for work in cities. Vlast columnist Evgeny Zhirnov reconstructed the history of the struggle of the Soviet leadership to preserve serfdom, which had been abolished a century earlier.
"There is a need for more accurate (passport) registration of citizens"
When Soviet schoolchildren learned poems about the “red-skinned passport,” many of them were reminded by Mayakovsky’s lines that their parents, even if they wanted, could not get a “duplicate of the priceless cargo,” since the villagers were not entitled to it by law. And also about the fact that planning to go from his native village to somewhere further than the regional center, each collective farmer was obliged to acquire an identification card a certificate from the village council, valid for no more than thirty days .
We would like to thank the Law Firm "Rubicon Consalting", which is engaged in the registration of LLCs in Kyiv, for their assistance in publishing materials on our website.
And that it was given exclusively with the permission of the collective farm chairman, so that the peasant enrolled in his ranks for life would not decide to leave the collective farm of his own free will.
CLICK on the photo to enlarge:
Some villagers, especially those who had numerous urban relatives, were ashamed of their disadvantaged position. And others did not even think about the injustice of Soviet laws, since they had never left their native village and the fields surrounding it in their entire lives. However, like many generations of their ancestors. After all, it was precisely this kind of attachment to one’s homeland that Peter I sought when three centuries ago he introduced previously unknown passports into use. With their help, the reformer Tsar tried to create a full-fledged tax and recruitment system, as well as eradicate loitering throughout Rus'. However, it was not so much about the universal registration of subjects of the empire, but about a total restriction of freedom of movement. Even with the permission of their own master, having written permission from him, the peasants could not travel more than thirty miles from their native village. And for longer trips, it was necessary to straighten a passport on a form, for which, since Catherine’s times, one also had to pay a lot of money.
Later, representatives of other classes of Russian society, including nobles, also lost freedom of movement. But still, the main restrictions concerned the peasants. Even after the abolition of serfdom, without the consent of the rural community, which confirmed that the passport applicant had no arrears in taxes or arrears in duties, it was impossible to obtain a passport. And for all classes there was registration of passports and residence permits with the police, similar to the modern registration familiar to everyone. Passports, however, were quite easily forged, and in many cases their registration was almost legally evaded. But still, keeping records of ordinary people greatly facilitated control over them and all the detective work of the police.
So it was not surprising that even under the new, revolutionary government, the police decided to simplify their lives by completely recording citizens. After all, after the end of the Civil War and the introduction of a new economic policy, not only the revival of private business and trade began, but also the massive movement of citizens seeking a better life. However, market relations also implied the presence of a labor market with a freely moving workforce. Therefore, the NKVD proposal was met without much enthusiasm in the Council of People's Commissars. In January 1923 People's Commissar of Internal Affairs Alexander Beloborodov complained to the Central Committee of the RCP(b):
“From the beginning of 1922, the N.K.V.D. was faced with the question of the need to change the existing procedure for residence permits. Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and Council of People's Commissars of 28/VI-19. determined only introduction of work books in the cities of Petrograd and Moscow, and in other parts of the Republic no documents were introduced by this decree and only indirectly indicated (Article 3 of this decree) the existence of a passport, upon presentation of which a work book was issued. With the introduction of N.E.P. The meaning of issuing work books in Moscow and Petrograd disappeared, and at the same time, in connection with the establishment of private trade turnover and private production, the need arose for more accurate accounting of the urban population, and, consequently, the need to introduce a procedure under which accounting could be fully ensured.
Besides, practice of decentralized issuance of documents on the ground showed that these documents were issued extremely varied both in essence and in form, and the issued certificates are so simple that falsifying them does not present any difficulty, which, in turn, extremely complicates the work of the search authorities and the police. Taking into account all of the above, the NKVD developed a draft regulation, which, after agreement with the interested departments, was submitted to the Council of People's Commissars for approval on February 23, 22. At the meeting of May 26, 22, the Small Council of People’s Commissars recognized the introduction of a single residence permit in the RSFSR as inappropriate.”
After a long ordeal through the authorities, the issue of passports reached the highest legislative body - the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, but even there it was rejected. But Beloborodov insisted:
“The need for an established document - an identity card is so great that the localities have already begun to resolve the issue in their own way. Projects have been developed by Petrograd, Moscow, the Turkic Republic, Ukraine, the Karelian Commune, the Crimean Republic and a number of provinces. Allowing various types of identity cards for individual provinces and regions it will extremely complicate the work of administrative bodies and create a lot of inconvenience for the population."
The Central Committee also did not immediately come to a consensus. But in the end they decided that control was more important than market principles, and from January 1 they banned pre-revolutionary documents, as well as any other papers used to confirm identity, including work books. Instead, a single identity card for a citizen of the USSR was introduced.
"The number of detainees was very significant"
However, in reality, certification was never carried out and everything came down to certificates of the established form from house managements, with the help of which it was never possible to establish real control over the movements of citizens. The Politburo commission, which considered the issue of passporting the country in 1932, stated:
"The order established by decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of June 20, 1923., modified by decree of 18.VII.1927, was so imperfect that at this time the following situation was created. Identification is not required, except in “cases provided for by law,” but such cases are not specified in the law itself. An identity document is any document, including certificates issued by the house management. These same documents are sufficient for registration and for obtaining a food card, which provides the most favorable ground for abuse, since house managements themselves carry out registration and issue cards on the basis of the documents they issue. Finally, by resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of November 10, 1930 The right to issue identity cards was granted to village councils and the mandatory publication of lost documents was abolished. This law actually annulled the documentation of the population in the USSR."
The issue of passports arose in 1932 not by chance. After the complete collectivization of agriculture, a mass exodus of peasants to the cities began, which aggravated the food difficulties that were growing year by year. And it was precisely to cleanse the cities, primarily Moscow and Leningrad, of this alien element that the new passport system was intended. A single identity document was introduced in cities declared regime, and passportization simultaneously served as a way to clear them of runaway peasants. Passports, however, were not issued not only to them, but also to enemies of the Soviet regime, those deprived of voting rights, repeatedly convicted criminals, as well as all suspicious and socially alien elements. Refusal to issue a passport meant automatic eviction from the regime city, and for the first four months of 1933, when the certification of the two capitals took place, in Moscow the population decline was 214,700 people, and in Leningrad - 476,182.
During the campaign, as usual, numerous mistakes and excesses occurred. Thus, the Politburo indicated to the police that old people whose children received passports should also be issued them, even despite belonging to the propertied and ruling classes before the revolution. And to support anti-religious work, they allowed to passport former clergy who voluntarily renounced their rank.
In the three largest cities of the country, including the then capital of Ukraine, Kharkov, after passportization, not only the criminal situation improved, but there were also fewer eaters.
In the three largest cities of the country, including the then capital of Ukraine, Kharkov, after passportization, not only the criminal situation improved, but there were also fewer eaters. And the supply of the passported population, although not very significant, has improved. The heads of other large cities in the country, as well as the regions and districts surrounding them, could not help but pay attention to this. Following Moscow passporting was carried out in a hundred-verst area around the capital. And already in February 1933 to the list of cities, where priority certification was carried out, included, for example, a building under construction Magnitogorsk.
As the list of regime cities and localities expanded, the opposition of the population also expanded. Citizens of the USSR, left without passports, acquired fake certificates, changed their biographies and surnames, and moved to places where passporting was yet to be done and they could try their luck again. And many came to regime cities, lived there illegally and earned their living by working at home on orders from various artels. So even after the end of passportization, the cleansing of regime cities did not stop. In 1935, the head of the NKVD Genrikh Yagoda and the USSR prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky reported to the Central Committee and the Council of People's Commissars about the creation of extrajudicial "troikas" for violators of the passport regime:
“In order to quickly clear the cities that fall under Article 10 of the Passport Law from criminal and declassed elements, as well as malicious violators of the Passport Regulations, the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor's Office of the USSR on January 10, 1935 ordered the formation of special troikas locally for resolution of cases of this category. This measure was dictated by the fact that the number of persons detained in these cases was very significant, and the consideration of these cases in Moscow at the Special Meeting led to excessive delay in the consideration of these cases and to overloading of places of pre-trial detention."
On the document, Stalin wrote a resolution: “The “quickest” cleansing is dangerous. It is necessary to clean up gradually and thoroughly, without pushes and excessive administrative enthusiasm. A one-year deadline for the end of the cleansing should be determined.” By 1937, the NKVD considered the comprehensive cleansing of cities complete and reported to the Council of People's Commissars:
"1. In the USSR, passports were issued to the population of cities, workers' settlements, regional centers, new buildings, MTS locations, as well as all settlements within a 100-kilometer strip around Moscow, Leningrad, a 50-kilometer strip around Kyiv and Kharkov; 100 -kilometer-long Western European, Eastern (Eastern Siberia) and Far Eastern border strip; esplanade zone of the Far East and Sakhalin Island and workers and employees (with families) of water and railway transport.
2. In other non-passported rural areas, passports are issued only to the population going to work as migrant workers, for study, for treatment and for other reasons.”
Actually, this was the second in priority, but the main purpose of passportization. The rural population left without documents could not leave their homes, since violators of the passport regime faced “troika” marks and imprisonment. And it was absolutely impossible to obtain a certificate to travel to work in the city without the consent of the collective farm board. So the peasants, as in the days of serfdom, found themselves tightly tied to their homes and had to fill the bins of their homeland for meager grain distributions for workdays or even for free, since they were simply left with no other choice.
Passports were given only to peasants in the border restricted zones (these peasants in 1937 included collective farmers from the Transcaucasian and Central Asian republics), as well as to residents of rural areas of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia annexed to the USSR.
"This order is not justified in any way"
In subsequent years, the passport system only became more stringent. Restrictions were introduced on residence in restricted cities for all non-working elements, with the exception of pensioners, disabled people and dependents of workers, which in reality meant automatic deprivation of registration and eviction from the city of any person who lost his job and did not have working relatives. Appeared and the practice of being assigned to hard work by confiscating passports. For example, since 1940, miners' passports were confiscated in personnel departments, issuing instead special certificates, the holders of which could neither get a new job nor leave their designated places of residence.
Naturally, the people looked for loopholes in the laws and tried to break free. The main way to leave the native collective farm was recruitment for even more difficult work.– logging, peat development, construction in remote northern areas. If orders for labor came down from above, the collective farm chairmen could only drag their feet and delay the issuance of permits. True, a recruited person’s passport was issued only for the duration of the contract, a maximum of a year. After which the former collective farmer tried by hook or by crook to extend the contract, and then become a permanent employee of his new enterprise.
Another effective way to obtain a passport is early sending of children to study at factory schools and technical schools. Everyone living on its territory, starting from the age of sixteen, was voluntarily and forcibly enrolled in the collective farm. And the trick was for the teenager to go to school at the age of 14-15, and then there, in the city, receive a passport.
However For many years, the most reliable means of getting rid of collective farm bondage remained military service. Having given their patriotic duty to their homeland, rural boys went in droves to factories, construction sites, the police, and remained for long-term service, just so as not to return home to the collective farm. Moreover, their parents supported them in every possible way.
It would seem that the end of the collective farm yoke should have come after the death of Stalin and the coming to power of a man who loved and understood the peasantry Khrushchev. But “dear Nikita Sergeevich” did absolutely nothing to change the passport regime in the countryside, apparently understanding that, having received freedom of movement, the peasants would stop working for pennies. Nothing changed after Khrushchev’s removal and the transfer of power to the triumvirate - Brezhnev, Kosygin and Podgorny. After all, the country still needed a lot of cheap bread, and they had long forgotten how to get it otherwise than by exploiting the peasants. That is why in 1967 the proposal of the first deputy chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers and the main person responsible for agriculture Dmitry Polyansky The country's top officials were met with hostility.
“According to the current legislation,” wrote Polyansky, “the issuance of passports in our country applies only to persons living in cities, regional centers and urban-type settlements (aged 16 years and older). Those who live in rural areas do not have the right to receive this basic document identifying a Soviet citizen. Such a procedure is currently unjustified, especially since in the territory of the Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian SSR, Moscow and Kaliningrad regions, some areas of the Kazakh SSR, Leningrad region, Krasnodar and Stavropol territories and in the border zone, passports are issued to everyone living there, regardless of whether they are city dwellers or villagers. In addition, according to established practice, passports are also issued to citizens living in rural areas if they work in industrial enterprises, institutions and organizations or in transport. also materially responsible workers on collective and state farms. According to the Ministry of Public Order of the USSR, the number of people now living in rural areas and not entitled to a passport reaches almost 58 million people(aged 16 years and older); this amounts to 37 percent of all citizens of the USSR. The lack of passports for these citizens creates significant difficulties for them in exercising labor, family and property rights, enrolling in studies, receiving various types of postal items, purchasing goods on credit, registering in hotels, etc... One of the main arguments for the inappropriateness of issuing passports citizens living in rural areas sought to curb the mechanical growth of the urban population. However, the certification of the entire population carried out in the above-mentioned union republics and regions showed that the fears in this regard were unfounded; it did not cause an additional influx of population from the countryside to the city. In addition, such an influx can be regulated if rural residents have passports. The current passport procedure, which infringes on the rights of Soviet citizens living in the countryside, causes them legitimate grievance. They rightly believe that such an order means for a significant part of the population unjustified discrimination, which must be ended."
When voting on the Politburo resolution proposed by Polyansky, its most venerable members - Brezhnev and Suslov - did not support the project, and the no less influential Kosygin proposed to discuss the issue further. And after disagreements arose, according to Brezhnev’s established procedure, any problem was removed from consideration for an indefinite period of time.
However, the question arose again two years later, in 1969, and it was raised USSR Minister of Internal Affairs Nikolai Shchelokov, faced, like his predecessor Beloborodov, with the need to organize an accurate census of all citizens of the country. After all, if for every passported citizen of the country the police kept a photograph along with his data, then it was not possible to identify the performers from the villages who committed the crimes. Shchelokov, however, tried to present the matter as if we were talking about issuing new passports to the entire country, during which injustice against peasants could be eliminated.
“The publication of a new Regulation on the passport system in the USSR,” said a note from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the CPSU Central Committee, “is also caused by the need for a different approach to resolving a number of issues related to the passport system in connection with the adoption of new criminal and civil legislation. In addition, this Currently, according to the existing Regulations, only residents of urban areas have passports, the rural population does not have them, which creates great difficulties for rural residents (when receiving postal items, purchasing goods on credit, traveling abroad on tourist packages, etc.). changes in the country, the growth of the well-being of the rural population and the strengthening of the economic base of collective farms prepared the conditions for the issuance of passports to the rural population, which will lead to the elimination of differences in the legal status of citizens of the USSR in terms of documenting their passports. At the same time, the current passports are produced according to models approved yet. in the thirties, are morally outdated, their appearance and quality cause fair criticism from workers."
Shchelokov was part of Brezhnev’s inner circle and could count on success. However, now Podgorny, who voted for Polyansky’s project, came out sharply against it: “This event is untimely and far-fetched.” And the issue of passporting collective farmers again hung in the air.
Only in 1973 did things move forward. Shchelokov again sent a note to the Politburo on the need to change the passport system, which was supported by all the heads of the KGB, the prosecutor's office and the justice authorities. It might seem that for the only time in the entire history of the USSR, Soviet law enforcement agencies protected the rights of Soviet citizens. But it only seemed so. The review from the department of administrative bodies of the CPSU Central Committee, which oversaw the army, the KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the prosecutor's office and the judiciary, said:
“According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, there is a need to solve a number of issues of the passport system in the country in a new way. In particular, it is proposed to passport not only the urban, but also the entire rural population, which currently does not have passports. This concerns 62.6 million rural residents over the age of 16, which is 36 percent to the total population of that age. It is assumed that the certification of rural residents will improve the organization of population registration and will contribute to a more successful identification of antisocial elements. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the implementation of this measure may affect in some areas the processes of migration of the rural population to the cities."
The Politburo commission created to prepare passport reform took into account the interests of all parties, worked slowly and prepared its proposals only in the following year, 1974:
“We would consider it necessary to adopt a new Regulation on the passport system in the USSR, since the current Regulation on Passports, approved in 1953, is largely outdated and some of the rules established by it require revision... The project provides for issuing passports to the entire population. This will create more favorable conditions for the exercise by citizens of their rights and will contribute to a more complete accounting of the movement of the population. At the same time, for collective farmers, the existing procedure for hiring them at enterprises and construction sites is maintained, that is, if they have certificates of their leave from the collective farm boards."
As a result, the collective farmers received nothing but the opportunity to take the “red-skinned passport” out of their trouser legs. But at the meeting on security and cooperation in Europe held in Helsinki in 1974, where the issue of human rights in the USSR was debated quite sharply, no one could reproach Brezhnev for the fact that sixty million people were deprived of freedom of movement. And the fact that they both worked under serfdom and continued to work for pennies remained a minor detail.
Evgeny Zhirnov
By decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, passports began to be issued to all villagers only in 1976-81.
http://www.pravoteka.ru/pst/749/374141.html
Resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers of August 28, 1974 N 677
"On approval of the regulations on the passport system in the USSR"
The Council of Ministers of the USSR decides:
1. Approve the attached Regulations on the passport system in the USSR, a sample passport of a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics *) and a description of the passport.
Enact the Regulations on the Passport System in the USSR, with the exception of paragraphs 1-3, 5, 9-18 concerning the issuance of new passports, from July 1, 1975 and in full from January 1976.
Instructions on the procedure for applying the Regulations on the passport system in the USSR are issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR.
In the period from July 1, 1975 to January 1, 1976, issue old-style passports to citizens in accordance with the Regulations on Passports, approved by the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of October 21, 1953, taking into account its subsequent additions and changes.
Establish that until citizens exchange old-style passports for new-style passports, the previously issued passports remain valid. At the same time, ten-year and five-year old-style passports, the validity of which will expire after July 1, 1975, are considered valid without an official extension of their validity until exchanged for new-style passports.
Citizens living in rural areas who were not previously issued passports, when traveling to another area for a long period of time, passports are issued, and when leaving for up to one and a half months, as well as in sanatoriums, rest homes, for meetings, on business trips or when they are temporarily involved in sowing, harvesting and other work, the executive committees of rural, town Councils of Workers' Deputies issue certificates certifying their identity and the purpose of their departure. The form of the certificate is established by the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs.
3. The Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, with the participation of interested ministries, departments of the USSR and the Councils of Ministers of the Union Republics, should develop and approve measures to ensure the work on issuing passports of a new type within the established time frame.
The Councils of Ministers of the Union and Autonomous Republics and the executive committees of local Soviets of Working People's Deputies to assist the internal affairs bodies in organizing and carrying out work related to the issuance of new passports, and to take measures to improve the placement of passport service workers, as well as to create the necessary conditions for them to serve population.
4. Oblige the ministries and departments of the USSR and the Councils of Ministers of the Union Republics to take additional measures to ensure that subordinate enterprises, organizations and institutions comply with the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of February 25, 1960 N 231 “On measures to eliminate clerical and bureaucratic distortions in the registration of workers to work and resolve the household needs of citizens" and eliminate the existing cases of requiring citizens to provide various types of certificates, when the necessary data can be confirmed by presenting a passport or other documents.
Chairman
Council of Ministers of the USSR
A. Kosygin
Business manager
Council of Ministers of the USSR
M. Smirtyukov
Position
about the passport system in the USSR
(approved by Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated August 28, 1974 N 677)
(as amended January 28, 1983, August 15, 1990)
I. General provisions
1. The passport of a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the main document certifying the identity of a Soviet citizen.
All Soviet citizens over 16 years of age are required to have a passport of a citizen of the USSR.
Military personnel and Soviet citizens who have arrived for temporary residence in the USSR and permanently reside abroad live without these passports.
Identification documents for military personnel are identity cards and military tickets issued by the command of military units and military institutions.
The identification documents of Soviet citizens who have arrived for temporary residence in the USSR and are permanently residing abroad are their general foreign passports.
Foreign citizens and stateless persons reside on the territory of the USSR according to documents established by the legislation of the USSR.
See the text of the paragraph in the previous edition
…
http://ussr.consultant.ru/doc1619.html
DECISION of the USSR Council of Ministers of August 28, 1974 N 677 "ON APPROVAL OF THE REGULATIONS ON THE PASSPORT SYSTEM IN THE USSR"
Source of publication: "Code of Laws of the USSR", vol. 10, p. 315, 1990, "SP USSR", 1974, N 19, art. 109
Note to the document: ConsultantPlus: note.
When applying a document, we recommend additional verification of its status taking into account the current legislation of the Russian Federation
Name of the document: DECISION of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated August 28, 1974 N 677 “ON APPROVAL OF THE REGULATIONS ON THE PASSPORT SYSTEM IN THE USSR”
Links
As I promised yesterday, I’m creating a new topic to discuss the fairly common myth that collective farmers were not given passports and that because of this they were limited in moving around the country and therefore were almost serfs.
The myth is often used by supporters of liberalism as one of the proofs of the bloodiness of the Soviet project.
So let's get started.
Passports first appeared in the USSR in 1932, on the basis of two resolutions dated December 27, 1932: “Resolution on the establishment of a unified passport system” and “Regulations on passports.”
I will give both to avoid misunderstandings
ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A UNIFIED PASSPORT SYSTEM FOR THE USSR
AND MANDATORY REGISTRATION OF PASSPORTS
In order to better account for the population of cities, workers' settlements and new buildings and to relieve these populated areas from persons not associated with production and work in institutions or schools and not engaged in socially useful labor (except for the disabled and pensioners), as well as for the purpose of clearing these populated areas from hiding kulak, criminal and other antisocial elements, the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR decide:
1. Establish a unified passport system throughout the USSR on the basis of the Regulations on Passports.
2. Introduce a unified passport system with mandatory registration throughout the USSR during 1933, primarily covering the population of Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kyiv, Odessa, Minsk, Rostov-on-Don and Vladivostok.
3. Instruct the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR to establish the timing and order of introduction of the passport system in all other areas of the USSR.
4. Instruct the governments of the union republics to bring their legislation into conformity with this Resolution and the Regulations on Passports.
Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR
M. KALININ
Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR
V. MOLOTOV (SKRYABIN)
Secretary of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR
A. ENUKIDZE"
REGULATIONS ON PASSPORTS
1. All citizens of the USSR over the age of 16, permanently residing in cities, workers’ settlements, working in transport, on state farms and on new buildings, are required to have passports.
2. In areas where the passport system has been introduced, the passport is the only document identifying the owner.
All other documents and certificates that served as residence permits are canceled as invalid.
A passport is required to present:
a) upon registration of the passport holder (registration);
b) when applying for a job in an enterprise or institution;
c) at the request of the police and other administrative authorities.
3. Registration of persons in areas where the passport system has been introduced is absolutely mandatory.
Citizens changing their place of residence within populated areas where the passport system has been introduced, or newly arriving in these populated areas, are required to present their passports through house management for registration with the police no later than 24 hours upon arrival at their new place of residence.
4. Persons under the age of 16 are included in the passports of the persons on whom they are dependent.
Persons under the age of 16 who are dependent on the state (in orphanages, etc.) are included in lists maintained by the relevant institutions.
5. For military personnel on active military service in the ranks of the Red Army, the documents established for them, issued by the relevant command, replace a passport.
6. Passports are issued by the bodies of the workers' and peasants' militia. Citizens permanently residing in settlements where the passport system has been introduced are issued passports without submitting applications, and citizens arriving in these settlements from other localities are issued upon their applications.
7. Citizens permanently residing in areas where the passport system has been introduced are issued passports for a three-year period.
Pending the introduction of a passport system throughout the USSR, workers' and peasants' militia bodies in cities are allowed to issue temporary certificates for a period of no more than three months when registering newly arriving citizens.
8. When issuing passports, citizens are charged three rubles, and when issuing temporary certificates - one ruble.
9. The following must be entered in the passport:
a) first name, patronymic and last name;
b) time and place of birth;
c) nationality;
d) social status;
e) permanent residence;
f) place of work;
g) completion of compulsory military service;
h) persons included in the owner’s passport;
i) a list of documents on the basis of which the passport was issued.
Note. The list of documents on the basis of which a passport is issued is established by the instructions.
10. Passport books and forms are produced according to a uniform model for the entire USSR. The text of passport books and forms for citizens of various union and autonomous republics is printed in two languages: Russian and the language commonly used in the given union or autonomous republic.
11. Persons who are required to have passports and find themselves without passports or temporary certificates are subject to an administrative fine of up to one hundred rubles.
Citizens who arrived from other areas without a passport or temporary certificate and did not choose a passport or temporary certificate within the period established by the instructions are subject to a fine of up to 100 rubles and removal by order of the police.
12. For living without registration of a passport or temporary ID, as well as for violating the registration rules, those responsible are subject to an administrative fine of up to 100 rubles, and if they repeatedly violate the registration rules, they are subject to criminal liability.
13. Persons charged with registration (house managers, commandants, homeowners, apartment owners, etc.) are subject to liability established in Art. 12 of these Regulations.
14. Forgery of passport forms entails criminal liability as for forgery of government securities under Art. 22 Regulations on State Crimes (SZ of the USSR, 1929, No. 72, Art. 687).
15. Forgery of a passport and the use of a false or someone else’s passport entails criminal liability in accordance with the legislation of the USSR and union republics.
16. Instruct the Main Directorate of the Workers' and Peasants' Militia under the OGPU of the USSR to submit instructions on the implementation of these Regulations for approval by the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR within ten days.
Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR
M. KALININ
Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR
V. MOLOTOV (SKRYABIN)
Secretary of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR
A. ENUKIDZE
