Industrialisation: A good thing?

Collective farms Bolsheviks argued that this would allow larger units of land to be farmed more efficiently through the use of metal ploughs, fertilisers and tractors. C&F: Say that collectivisation was aimed to achieve the objectives of Socialism in One Country; government control above and below where Stalin believed the peasants would learn to live communally. At first collectivisation was voluntary, but as the 1930s progressed and the Right were quelled, forced grain requisition was devastating for the peasantry.

Collective farms Stalin justified his liquidisation of the Kulaks by portraying them as a class enemy. Philips argues that Stalin’s terror against the Kulaks was an attempt to frighten the middle and poor peasants into submission. There was surprising peasant resistance. Oxley writes that they preferred to support the Kulaks than join the government.

Collective farms: Social effects Human cost was enormous. The elimination of 15 million Kulaks Estimated 4 million deaths from the 1933 famine. Conquest feels that collectivisation was a deliberate policy of genocide against the Ukrainian people on the part of Stalin. C&F highlight other factors; the upheaval and social change of collectivisation, the purging of the Kulaks, poorly organised collectives, lack of machinery and the peasantry’s slaughtering vast numbers of their own livestock as resistance.

Collective farms: Economic effects Decline in cattle from over 70 million in 1928 to less than 39 million in Grain production fell from 73.3 million tonnes in 1928 to 67.7 million tonnes in Yes, more widespread use of machinery led to some recovery in the late 1930s, productivity levels remained low. Took decades for Soviet agriculture to reach some of the production levels for foodstuffs attained in the period before collectivisation.

Collective farms: Economic effects Yet, C&F point out that we must recognise that the state collected the grain it needed to feed the rapidly growing workforce and to sell abroad to pay for industrial equipment. What is more, dispossessed peasants from the overpopulated countryside fled to the towns, so providing labour for the new factories. So; collectivisation had succeeded in its main purpose – to provide the resources for industrialisation.

1 st Five Year Plan: Economic effects 1 st Five Year Plan, Oct 1928-Dec 1932 kick started the Soviet economy. Electricity trebled; coal and iron output doubled and steel production increased by one-third. Engineering industry developed and increased output of machine tools. Huge tractor works were built in Stalingrad, Kharkov etc to meet the needs of mechanised agriculture.

1 st Five Year Plan: Economic effects  Decline in consumer industries such as house building and woolen textiles. Small workshops were squeezed out, partly because of the drive against the Nepmen and partly because of shortages of material and fuel. Chemical targets were not fulfilled and the lack of unskilled workers created instability as workers constantly changed jobs. C&F mention the impact of the Great Depression meaning that Russia could not earn enough from exports to pay for all the machinery it needed (due to low grain and raw material prices). Oxley notes that the rapid industrialisation of the 1 st five year plan instigated an impressive growth in certain sectors of the economy.

2 nd Five Year Plan Heavy industries benefited from plants that had been erected in the 1 st five year plan. Electricity production expanded quickly. By 1937, Russia was virtually self-sufficient in machine making and metalworking. Transport and communications grew rapidly. Chemical industries such as fertiliser production were growing and minerals such as copper, zinc and tin were mined for the first time. As in the 1 st plan, there were also weaknesses.

2 nd Five Year Plan  Consumer goods were still lagging behind and oil production did not make the expected advances. In an economic sense, Russia’s development has been viewed by those such as Nove, as effective. However, the 3 rd Five year plan was not so effective.

3 rd Five Year Plan Jan 1938-June 1941 Nove argues that the development was uneven and some areas did poorly. He suggests it was more successful in the growth of defence and armament. Yet, steel output grew insignificantly, oil production failed to meet targets which led to a fuel crisis and factories ran short of materials. Whilst C&F say this was all due to a bitter winter and collision with WWII, Nove argues that the economic problems of the 3 rd Five year plan were largely a product of the Great Purges.

Living Standards As well as social transformation, Stalin viewed the transformation of living standards as crucial in the process of the move to socialism. Official Soviet propaganda portrayed Russia as Russia as architecturally modern. However, Philips argues a modern apartment with running water, electricity and central heating was a realistic hope for those workers who demonstrated impressive commitment to fulfilling Stalin’s plans, but the rest of the population remained in drab, overcrowded houses with primitive facilities.