specialization of each complex was to
have a scientific foundation, and arbitrary decisions--as they were
called--as to which farms to include in a particular complex were not to
be tolerated. The requirement of territorial unity also nullified the
right of independent choice for most farms. Except for those located on
the borders of adjoining complexes, farms had perforce to join the
complex formed in their area. The speed with which the agroindustrial
complexes were formed throughout the entire country, with considerable
loss of independence for the farms, also suggests that the voluntary
nature of the complexes is a fiction. Available sources have contained
no reference to any change in the affiliation of farms from one complex
to another, let alone to the withdrawal of any farm from a complex. The
decree on the organization and management of agriculture that went into
effect on January 1, 1973, contained no provision for a farm's
withdrawal from an agroindustrial complex.

The major tasks assigned to the agroindustrial complexes include: the
creation of large specialized units for the various types of
agricultural production; the introduction of mechanized industrial
methods of production; the efficient application of human and material
resources; and the equitable distribution of income to workers and
managers in a manner that will provide an incentive for conscientious
work. Only preliminary official directives have been issued to guide the
agroindustrial complexes in these matters. Economists, agricultural
scientists, and officials have labored to develop a scientific basis for
the effective solution of the problems of transition.

One of the basic issues raised by the creation of agroindustrial
complexes concerns the ownership of land in the new organizations,
particularly in complexes that unite collective and state farms.
Legally, collective farm members retained ownership of the land they
contributed to the collective, although they have been unable to
exercise any ownership rights. Until 1961 collective farm members
received a rental payment for the land in the annual distribution of the
farm's income. There is an apparent official reluctance for political
reasons abruptly to convert collective property to state ownership.
Public statements have indicated that the difference between collective
and state property may be eliminated by transforming both into national
property. Under the prevailing economic sys