Russia Theme 2: Industrial and agricultural change, 1917–85

Question 1

what was the first economic policy issued by the bolsheviks and what were its features?

Answer 1

state capitalism 1917-18. lenin admitted there was no blueprint for transitioning from capitalism to communism. transitional phase between feudal imperial russia and communism was known as state capitalism, where Bs would work with bourgeoise to use their expertise before dissolving the bourgeois class.
there were 3 key measures taken in state capitalism:
-land decree, october 1917: abolished private land, was now in the “hands of the people”. vague decree but gained support from the peasantry who now saw the land they worked as their own.
-decree on workers’ control, november 1917: placed control of factories into the hands of the idndustrial workers (although this had little practical impact due to russia’s backward, pre-industrial economic nature at the time)
-bank reforms, december 1917: all banks were nationalised and amalgamated into the People’s Bank of the Russian Republic.

Question 2

what were the impacts of state capitalism?

Answer 2

ideological: huge step in the right direction for Bs. first major change the party had made as the governing party. set precedent for further and more radical reform.
social: workers felt empowered, led to increased support for the B party. improved pay of many industrial workers due to their ability to set their own wages
economic: led to economic downturn; obvious problems with workers voting to give themselves pay rises. removal of techical experts due to their belonging to the bourgeoise, inflation became a problem.

Question 3

why was war communism introduced?

Answer 3

desperate circumstances of the civil war. Bs introduced measures to ensure the RA had enough food and recources to emerge victorious against the less organised whites.

Question 4

what was the ideological basis for introducing war communism?

Answer 4

many Bs saw the civil war as an opportunity to establish communist values and policies earlier than previously expected. due to hyperinflation, bartering had replaced traditional currency which Bs saw as a sign of the dissolution of capitalism.

Question 5

what were the practical reasons for introducing war communism?

Answer 5

response to economic collapse - Bs had inherited backward economy and drastic measures were needed in order to win the civil war. state direction of economy had been key feature of western governments during WW1, and had nothing to do with ideology.

reaction to early B successes - some bolshevik decrees such as giving complete control to workers proved to be unworkable - war communism sought to build on the early successes and correct the failures.

Question 6

what were the key features of war communism?

Answer 6

-nationalisation (state ownership) of all industry. only workplaces with fewer than 10 workers were exempt.
-all industry put under state control through supreme council of national economy (vesenkha) set up in 1917.
-reintroduction of hierarchical society. workers’ councils were replaced by management once again to instil discipline into workers.
-military-style discipline introduced in factories. death penalty for workers who went on strike. unemployed forced to join “labour armies” and set to work on projects like road building or woodland clearance. all workers expected to volunteer for unpaid work on “communist saturdays”
-all private trading banned. trade became state controlled - but because it could not meet demand, a large black market developed.
-few monetary transactions due to inflation. money replaced by bartering using goods - many workers received wages in goods rather than money.
-forcible requisitioning of food from peasants in order to feed the army and the towns; 150k-ish volunteers used to seize grain . resulted in rise in tension in the countryside and serious outbreaks of violence, often directed at the requisitioning teams. malnutrition/starvation became common.
-introduction of rationing to ensure that, despite food shortages, the workers in the cities were fed. those industrial workers whose work was crucial to the war effort received preferential treatment.

Question 7

what were the consequences of war communism?

Answer 7

ensured that the RA got the resources it needed to fight and win the civil war, but left the economy in a state of collapse. by 1921 industrial production was 1/5 of the figure for 1913. disease/starvation were common and a wave of serious unrest swept across the countryside.
over 20 million died from famine and disease in 1920s - thought to be knock-on effect from WC.

Question 8

why was the NEP introduced?

Answer 8

1921 - deteriorating political position of Bs, as well as poor socioeconomic situation, led Bs to adopt the NEP. WC was successful in delivering the needed resources to frontlines, but came at huge cost in terms of impact on economy and B popularity. post-war period was a new situation that required different govt response.

economic considerations:
industry was at a near standstill by the end of the war (20% of 1913 level). WC was simply unable to cope with post-war economy - this is not what it was designed for

unpopularity of WC:
rationing system was resented, size of rations was dependent on social classification of person; eg RA and industrial proletariat received the most, bourgeois members received little to no rations.
return to hierarchical systems led to resentment among industrial workers, causing violence.
resentment was most clearly illustrated by the kronstadt and tambov risings.

Question 9

what were the key features of the NEP?

Answer 9

agriculture:
-end to requisitioning. replaced by taxation system which allowed peasants to sell excess food for a profit.
-Bs also announced that there would be no forced food programme of collectivisation

industry:
-NEP re-privatised small scale industry, while the state retained control of large-scale industry, transport and banks. allowed lenin to claim state held “commanding heights of the economy”
-in state-run factories, piecework and bonuses were given to incentivise higher production. some Bs opposed this as “capitalist techniques”
-reintroduction of currency for paying wages
-legalisation of private trade
-development of “nepmen” - those who benefited from the new economic freedoms of the NEP; used in derogatory sense.

Question 10

how successful was the NEP?

Answer 10

positives:
industrial output rose rapidly during first 3 years of NEP - due to repairing roads/buildings, and putting existing factories back into use - also due to better harvests in 1922/23.

negatives:
corruption through a black market flourished - prostitution and gangs of children were widespread. there was also a major imbalance of agriculture and industry prices - due to increased food supply, the prices fell dramatically. at the same time, prices for industrial goods sharply rose. trotsky called this the “scissors crisis”. state intervention took place to resolve this, in 1923.

Question 11

what provoked the desicion to move back to a command economy?

Answer 11

by 1924, industrial production was 45% of its 1913 figure. by 1926 most of the prewar economy had been restored. in order for the economy to grow further, food production had to increase in order to feed the increasing workforce, and gain a foreign exchange for tech/machinery. Stalin/Bukharin among others called for continuation of the NEP, while Trotsky/others on the left of the Bs wanted greater state control over economy to increase the pace of growth. in 1926 stalin got his way and the NEP stayed but by 1928 circs were different.

practical reasons:
in 1927 there was a looming threat of an attack from western powers, given events that had been happening in other countries. this caused peasants to hoard food out of fear - confirmed to stalin that more state control was needed to avoid this issue.

ideological reasons:
would result in the removal of kulaks and nepmen, who had become richer than other people due to the compromises made by the NEP.

political reasons:
gave stalin an opportunity to consolidate his control over the party leadership. having removed the left in 1926, he could now go after the right. he argued the NEP should be replaced by the first 5YP.

Question 12

what were the five year plans and how were they implemented?

Answer 12

one of the central aims of the USSR in its infancy was to industrialise. the economy had made large advances under the NEP, but the USSR still remained far behind western europe. soviet technology was outdated and needed to modernise if the USSR was to gain more influence.
the 5YPs were state controlled blueprints for economic growth over a five year period, including plans for industry and agriculture. they usually included quotas for amounts of key materials that should be produced in a given period.

implementation:
stalin presented the 5YPs as patriotic movements; “we are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries. either we must make good this distance in 10 years. either we do it or we will be crushed.”

the plans were to place emphasis on heavy industry, in order to make the USSR self-sufficient. industrialisation was placed under control of gosplan, the state planning authority.
5YPs considerably extended state control over economy, and attempted to root out nepmen (mostly shopkeepers, who joined cooperatives) and “bourgois experts” (members of middle/upper classes who were employed by the Bs in early years of revolution due to their experience in industry or agriculture - they were removed from their posts and replaced by members of proletariat).

Question 13

brief summary of each five year plan

Answer 13

first 5YP:
1928-32. concentration on heavy industry such as coal, steel, and iron. consumer industries like textiles/household goods were neglected. the justification behind this was that industrial infrastructure needed to be built up before other sectors could flourish.

second 5YP:
1932-37. initially set higher targets for production of consumer goods, but as the 1930s progressed, the rise of hitler in germany redirected the focus onto the needs of defence, which meant that heavy industry continued to receive priority.

third 5YP:
much more strongly directed towards military output, in order to meet the threat of germany.

Question 14

what were the features and outcomes of the first five year plan?

Answer 14

launched in 1928, the method of industrial expansion used by the first 5YP was mainly to make more efficient use of existing factories and equipment. new plants were built, but they did not make signifcnat impact on production until after 1934. industrial centres like magnitogorsk were built from scratch and became entire cities within the first plan. in 1929 there were 25 people living in magnitogorsk; after 3 years this number had increased to 250,000.
however, facilities at new industrial centres were primitive, with workers being housed in tents/huts. rewards for intense work were often limited, so workers (who had usually volunteered to move) had to rely on their socialist beliefs for motivation.

outcomes:
positive: production of electricity, coal and oil were doubled from 1927-1932.
negative: none of the goals set for 1932 were reached (due to them being unrealistically high). the steel and pig iron industries did not grow by nearly as much, and the wool cloth industry shrank from 97m tonnes in 1927 to 93m in 1932.

Question 15

what were the features and outcomes of the second five year plan?

Answer 15

second plan drew on lessons learnt from chaotic planning of 5YP1 and made more use of technical expertise. with new industrial centres eg magnitogorsk starting production, results were impressive. chemical industry also made progress. the plan continued to develop traditional industrial centres like moscow and leningrad (st petersburg) alongside new centres. many of the new developments were in more remote areas of ussr such as kazakhstan; this promoted more even distribution of industrialisation. there was also a deliberate policy of focusing industry east of the ural mountains, where it would be safer in the event of an attack from the west. this was a much clearer policy in 5YP3.

outcomes:
positive: substantial increases in coal and steel production between 1932-37.
negative: consumer goods remained neglected, so these industrial developments often did not have a great impact on life for the average soviet citizen (with the exception of electricity).

Question 16

what were the features and outcomes of the third five year plan?

Answer 16

5YP3 had similar features to 5YP2 (eg more use of technical expertise, regional development to balance out different republics) - however there was a much greater focus on the military aspect of industry, due to the looming threat of a german invasion. in turn this led to a greater focus on development in the eastern parts of the USSR due to the fact that this would be safer from an attack on the western front.
outcomes:
positive: the preparation for war allowed the ussr to fend of the correctly predicted german invasion in 1941. industrial production also continued to rise, albeit at a slower rate than was seen in the first two plans
negative: slower rate of growth. german invasion came with untold death/destruction of soviet people. perhaps the number of deaths could have been reduced with different military planning strategy.

Question 17

what were the reasons behind implementing collectivisation?

Answer 17

the NEP had left agriculture mostly unchanged since the revolution - peasant farms run on an individual basis, overseen by the mir (village elders) were still the main source of agricultural output. by 1928, political and economic factors were pushing stalin to abandon the NEP, and push for collectivisation.

the link with industry:
fear of invasion had convinced those in power than industrialisation was vital; a modern economic base would be essential if the USSR were to have any hope of defending itself. by extension, further industrialisation would only be possible with a stronger agricultural base. industrialisation led to urbanisation, so less people farming in rural areas. the traditional agricultural methods would have no hope of sustaining this

economic case for collectivisation:
soviet agriculture was highly inefficient compared to the rest of europe. land was owned by peasants and distributed in piecemeal fashion. the formation of collective farms where peasants would be grouped together on larger farm units would create an economy of greater scale. boundaries could be removed and the larger spaces would make machinery and food production in general more effective. the lower labour requirement of this system would enable more agricultural workers to move to the cities and work in factories.

political case for collectivisation:
collectivisation would help extend socialism to the countryside, and ensure the survival of the revolution. control of the party in remote regions was weak, and support had declined since the tambov rising. little enthusiasm for socialist principles in countryside: the land decree of 1917 took land away from the rich landed classes which garnered support from peasantry, but the intention was never that this land would now be the private property of peasants. early collectivisation attempts failed; in 1925 less than 1% of farmland was collectivised.
collectivisation would remove classes of kulaks and nepmen, created by the NEP. in addition agricultural production had been falling since 1926; due to surplus grain being bought at low prices, peasants were disincentivised to grow more food.

Question 18

what was the process of collectivisation?

Answer 18

series of phases, each phase became more radical. initially the party decided on programme of voluntary collectivisation, but food shortages in 1928 led the govt to carry out forced requisitioning of grain as a temporary emergency measure. this method was used increasingly, as the rate of collectivisation increased. stalin talked of moving the policy of limiting exploitative techiques of kulaks to the “liquidation” of the kulaks as a class.

local party officials would enter villages, and attempt to persuade the locals of the benefits of collectivisation, until enough people had signed up. promises of machinery, and the establishment of machine and tractor stations (MTS) were given. these were govt-run centres that would supply farm machinery to the collective. once enough peasants had agreed to collectivisation, the collective could seize animals, grain supplies and buildings.
the term “kulak” also began being applied to any peasant who did not sign up, as well as its original definition of a rich and exploitative peasant. these people would be labelled as “class enemies” and would often be deported to siberia or the urals.

collectivisation attempts were regularly met with hostility and violence. kulaks would set fire to their buildings and slaughter their animals. party officials were also often killed upon arriving in villages. the party dealt with this by sending in “dekulakisation squads”, to help forcibly organise collectives.

some concessions were offered to peasants, like a small garden and some animals for personal use.

by 1932 62% of peasants households had been collectivised, rising to 93% in 1937.

Question 19

what were the results of collectivisation?

Answer 19

economically, collectivisation was a disaster. the supply of machinery to collectives was slow and many were without tractors until the mid 1930s. the removal of kulaks was damaging as they were often the most productive workers. peasants often relied on kulaks to hire tools, as well. the slaughtering of animals by kulaks was devastating - the cattle population halved and the population was not fully recovered until 1953. consequence of the slaughter was a serious shortage of meat and milk. grain production also fell, from 73m tonnes in 1928 to 67m in 1934. this fall may not have been disastrous, if the government were not seizing ever-increasing amounts of grain. as the rural population starved, the govt seized food for export to gain foreign exchange. widespread famine occured in 1932/33, particularly affecting ukraine, kazakhstan and the caucasus region. peasants began moving to towns in search of food, but the government introduced a passport system to prevent peasants from leaving the collectives. some farmers began eating their own children in order to survive. the ussr leadership dismissed rumours of famine as “local difficulties”, but recent data puts the death toll of the famine at 4 million in 1933 alone.

agriculture began to slowly recover after this. good weather helped the 1937 harvest, and the fall in demand for animal fodder (due to the slaughter of animals) meant that more could be used for human consumption.

the human cost is difficult to quantify, however the kulaks as a class were successfully liquidated. estimates of the death toll range from 10-15 million. some historians argue that collectivisation was an attempted genocide of the ukrainian people, sometimes referred to as the holodomor.

Question 20

what was the impact of the second world war on the soviet economy?

Answer 20

german invasion placed an enormous strain on the resources of the country. the centralised economy was effective in mobilising the resources of the country for war. at local level, defence committees were set up to coordinate war production. many factories were evacuated to the east, and non-essential production (eg toys, bicycles) was halted in favour of military/arms production.

despite an initial collapse in industry, production rose impressively over the course of the war. between 1943-45, 73k tanks and 94k aircraft were produced. some products were imported, however. eg tinned meat like spam was imported from britain; the production of consumer goods at this stage was virtually non-existent. by the end of the war, the damage in nazi-occupied areas had reduced overall production; eg steel production had falled to 12m tonnes in 1945 compared to 18m in 1940.

the agricultural system was also desperate. most able-bodied men in the countryside had been conscripted, and animals had also been used for wartime purposes. as a result production of grain fell from 95m tonnes in 1940 to 30m in 1942. because of this, the govt lifted restrictions on the cultivation of private plots, to provide an incentive for peasants to keep working.

by the end of the war the western parts of the USSR were devastated. 25m people were homeless, almost as many had been killed - 1,700 towns and 70,000 villages were destroyed.

Question 21

what were the features and outcomes of the fourth five year plan?

Answer 21

1946-50. the main goal was rapid economic reconstruction, and reverting production and agriculture to their pre-war levels. factories that had been used for military production were reverted to their old civilian production. rigid state control was used to enforce these economic measures. prisoners in gulags would heavily contribute to production. retaining programmes were used to ensure workers had the basic skills needed for jobs that were now in demand. penalties for slackers were harsh. the focus was placed on heavy industry as it was before the war.

results:
positive:
targets were overfulfilled. the economy recovered remarkably well, and many were lifted from homelessness.
negative: similar to the previous plans, 5YP4 almost completely ignored consumer industry, meaning many struggled to buy staple household items.

the results were impressive -

Question 22

what were the features and results of the fifth five year plan?

Answer 22

set out to achieve further economic growth but at a slower and more reasonable rate. the emergence of the cold war resulted in increased arms expenditure; the military budget increased year on year. growth in other industries was less impressive - many resources were wasted on large, grandiose projects with little practical use. the volga-don canal was a key example - it was a huge, expensive undertaking, but carried little traffic and was adorned with statues of stalin. the same was true for large government buildings constructed in moscow.

results:
positive: quality of life improved significantly in cities. real wages for urban workers reached the levels seen in 1928 from around 1952. price reductions eased conditions further.
negative: rural conditions improved far more slowly. betterment of conditions may have been much greater had their not been a wasting of resources on the cold war arms race, and construction of huge projects for stalin’s cult of personality.

Question 23

what was the nature of agriculture during and after ww2?

Answer 23

during the war, state control was relaxed slightly. peasants were allowed to have their own plots of land within collective farms that they would be in control of, and as long as a collective farm was meeting the state quota, the remaining grain could be sold for a profit.

after the war this system was abolished; tight state control was imposed on collectives, and taxes were raised on private plots in order to reduce their importance.
agri production was low after the war. this was due to several reasons; first, collectivisation had led to kulaks killing their own livestock. this shortage obviously created problems for agricultural production. MTS’s had not been properly developed, leading to a shortage of mechanical equipment. this meant that peasants would often have to shackle themselves to ploughs to till the soil themselves, due to the fact that they did not have machines or animals to do this job. many able-bodied men continued to move to cities in search of work. this left many villages populated entirely by women and children. finally a drought in 1946 exacerbated the situation and in 1947 there was a famine in parts of ukraine. grain production remained low up to 1952, when productivity was lower than it had been in 1913. in order to combat these inefficiencies, khrushchev proposed to stalin that collective farms should increase in size. by 1952 around 100k of these new, larger collectives were formed; they remained quite unpopular with the peasantry.

Question 24

what did khrushchev want to change about the economy when he came to power?

Answer 24

K wanted to move away from absolute focus on heavy industry, and instead develop light industry, chemicals and consumer goods. this change would broaden the base of the soviet economy, and start to bring real, tangible benefits to the soviet population

Question 25

what were khrushchev’s main challenges before reforming the economy?

Answer 25

-vast bureaucratic system of administrators in moscow stifled initiative. difficult for local innovations to take place for fear of upsetting “the plan” - this culture of fear had been instilled under stalin
-system was clumsy and wasteful - incapable of dealing with unforeseen events, evidenced by the holodomor.

Question 26

what were khrushchev’s economic reforms in his policy of de-stalinisation, and who suggested these reforms?

Answer 26

-1957 - k set up 105 regional economic councils to supervise enterprises. this was an attempt to move decision making away from the centre to regional bases. it was hoped this system would be able to account for local circumstances more effectively.
-harsh labour laws of stalin years were removed and the working week was reduced from 48 hours to 41 by 1960. incentives replaced stalin’s policy of coercion.
-managers of factories and other industrial enterprises were given more influence. K disliked the fact they were merely “robots of moscow”. to encourage initiative they were allowed to keep 40% of prodits made by their factory to re-invest as they wished.
-greater emphasis on vocational education to support industrial developments. specialist technical schools were set up and vocational education grew.

many of these ideas were promoted by liberman. the implementation of these policies was known as the liberman plan of 1962.

Question 27

what were the features and outcomes of the seven year plan?

Answer 27

1959-65
discovery of minerals in the volga-urals fields encouraged govt to transform fuel and chemical industries. involved a shift of emphasis from coal to oil/gas.
this focus on chemical industries was tied to a policy of greater emhhasis on consumer goods. there were huge increases planned for synthetic fibres, footwear, natural fabrics and housing.

results:
positive: economic reforms allowed the USSR to win the space race (first space satellite, first dog in space and first man in space)
consumer goods were far more abundant than they previously had been, improving quality of life for tens-hundreds of millions.
in the late 1950s, the economic growth rate of the USSR was 7.1%, compared to 2.9% in the US - one of the highest growth rates ever seen for a country of this size
negative: despite increase in abundance of goods, quality was often poor due to the system prioritising quantity. eg one shoe factory produced its quota of shoes, but all had the heel nailed to the toe.
economic growth slowed somewhat in the 1960s; it also had a much smaller economic base than the US to begin with.

Question 28

how did khrushchev reform agriculture before the virgin lands scheme?

Answer 28

K was from peasant background and recognised that the slow growth in food production was holding up growth in industry, and making living standards unacceptably low. he met peasants on collectives and listened to their views. K considered himself an agricultural expert. while this expertise was overstated, he was committed to raising priority of agriculture in the economy. to increase productivity K made many reforms:
-in 1955 individual colelctives given greater powers to make decisions at local level. flexibility was given for how decisions made by ministry for agriculture were interpreted
-MTS were abolished. peasants hated them as instruments of central interference. unfortunately they were replaced by system that expected peasants to buy their own machinery; unsuccessful.
-collectives increased in size once again. many had now become large agro-industrial villages that linked food production with food processing. these units made sense for creating economies of scale, and also enabled greater agricultural investment. there was a rapid increase in mechanisation, fertilisers and irrigation. however these collectives were once again generally disliked by the peasants who worked on them.
-prices given for state purchases of food were increased and seizures were replaced by planned purchases. this was to increase willing productivity.
-greater concessions were given to peasants on how they could use produce from private plots - they were now allowed to sell excess on private markets - encouraged production
-the virgin lands scheme. this was launched in 1954 and involved the cultivation of previously unused land on an enourmous scale. wasteland in siberia and kazakhstan was used - 6 million acres were cultivated with the help of young CCCP voolunteers.

Question 29

what was the impact of khrushchev’s agricultural reforms on production?

Answer 29

K successfully raised the status of agriculture back to a central component of the economy, when under stalin it was a strictly military-industrial complex. the salaries of farmers doubled, however they still received much less than industrial workers. food production increased by 51% between 1953-58.

however, some cracks began to show in K’s policies. the first signs of failure of the VLS became evident when crops began dying in kazakhstan. the dry land was suitable for cash crops like cotton, but without proper irrigation food crops failed.
investment had been increased overall in agriculture, but it was still not enough to remedy years of underinvestment under stalin. in the 1960s shortage of supplies had an impact on supplies of animal fodder; animals had to be slaughtered as a result. the ultimate sign of failure was when the USSR had to import grain from north america and australia. this was one of the factors in K’s dismissal in 1964.

Question 30

what happened to economic reform after Khrushchev’s dismissal?

Answer 30

K’s dismissal as GS resulted in abandonment of his most controversial policies, but otherwise economic policy remained the same. problems in soviet economy were too obvious to ignore, so there was a continued push to stimulate creativity and innovation. however there were conservatives within the party who made any change highly difficult, as the USSR became increasingly oligarchical and gerontocratic. in 1965 regional economic councils were abolished, re-centralising decision making. system echoed that of stalin and showed that conservatives like brezhnev were more influential.

Question 31

what were the kosygin reforms and what were their results?

Answer 31

in 1965, soviet PM alexei kosygin launched reforms to increase creativity in decision making. similar to K his reforms used incentives to promote efficiency, and also advocated the use of cost-benefit analysis rather than pure quantity goals that stalin used.

the reforms were ultimately ineffective - party officials implementing policies were generally hostile to the changes, and B supported these people and sabotaged the changes. they were watered down to the point of being obsolete; eg bonuses for pure production of goods was much higher than bonuses for innovation; so factory bosses were inevitably going to stick with tried methods. kosygin was eventually sidelined by B in 1968.

Question 32

what were the reforms made under brezhnev and how substantial were they?

Answer 32

-in 1973 major industrial complexes were joined with research institution to ensure technology was applied to production.
-system of targets further centralised in 1974. new targets aimed to move away from just using output figures and focus more on cost/profit.

these reforms were very small in the grand scheme of things. attempts to use new tech were limited by rigid command economy.
new equipment was often left to rust as the factory continued to achieve old targets with old machinery. cost/profit analysis was often ineffective in an economic system where prices were set to the government, not in line with supply and demand.

Question 33

what was the 9th five year plan?

Answer 33

1971-75 - greater push for consumer goods, following ethos of K. growth rate of consumer goods industry was greater than the heavy industry. goals were not fulfilled, but living standards still rose impressively. by 1980, 85% of families had a TC and 70% had washing machines. only 9% had a car, however there was lots of investment in public transport. B retained the importance of agri, despite the fact that the military-industrial complex was so powerful by this point that it often made decisions without informing the politburo.

Question 34

how did agriculture change during the brezhnev years?

Answer 34

like with industry, Ks decentralising of agri was reversed. power was reteruned to the ministry of agri and the VLS was dropped.
however, the politburo continued to aknowledge the dire need for further agri investment. by 1976 1/4 of all investment was in agri.
B also allowed a greater role for production of peasants’ private plots.

result of this policy was a steady rise in agri production, but a steady decline in worker productivity. this was due to a large and unskilled workforce, as well as poor roads and faulty machinery.

the main problem that occured was the production of food not meeting demand; rather than causing famine, this led to dire shortages in state shops, while private markets boomed. eventually private foodstuffs were sold for 2x more than they were worth in state shops. as a result private plots were only 1% of cultivated area, but were responsible for 25% of total produce.

Question 35

what were the attempted reforms of andropov?

Answer 35

it was clear A represented the need for reform, but rather than a fundamental change he believed the route to improvement was a tougher and more disciplined approach to current policy. his main aim was to reduce corruption; which was responsible for falsification of production figures, and theft of goods for the black market.

A also wished to improve labour discipline. there was a widespread problem of workplace absenteeism/alcoholism. the govt conducted spot checks looking for slackers; this approach did not make him popular.

Question 36

what was evidence of economic decline in the 1980?

Answer 36

by 1980s economic growth was in steady decline. in the 50s there was an annual growth of 7%, the 60s saw rates of 5% and the 70s saw 3%. the situation was often worse than production figures indicated bc output was recorded by value of goods produced rather than weight or some other metric. bc the prices were controlled by the govt, these figures could (to some degree) be manipulated.

fixation of output masked systemic issues with quality control. shoddy goods were a constant complain of the soviet population. many goods were of such poor quality that they were left to rot in storage. a common joke was that soviet condoms (extremely thick) contained more rubber than car tires (thin and prone to bursting).

focus on output also masked issues with productivity. evidence of this was that soviet agri used 25% of workforce, 26% of investment and cultivated area larger than area used in the US, but the output was 1/6 that of the US.

Question 37

what were the main reasons for economic decline?

Answer 37

legacy of stalinist system:
this approach was geared towards rapid growth to cause industrialisation at extreme speed. the move toward efficiency/quality was more difficult to achieve in highly centralised system of planning laid down in stalin period.

inherent problems of a command economy:
central control did not encourage initiative/creativity in the system. experimentation at local level was often seen as a threat, and attempts to decentralise were thwarted by party structures. central planners could not anticipate changes in costs or demand for certain goods, making the system rigid and ultimately ineffective.

the “social contract”:
there was an unstated but understood contract that the govt would provide employment and social security in exchange for workers’ compliance. this implication left the state ultimately unwilling to use the ultimate sanction of unemployment. the result was large numbers of workers being highly unproductive; soviet saying “we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us”.

lack of investment:
investment in agri under K and B was still not enough to address the chronic underfunding it received under stalin. storage facilities, rural transport and reliable machinery were in very short supply throughout the soviet period.

outdated tech:
by the 80s the USSR was unable to keep up with technological advances made in the west. the elements of the soviet economy that exceeded that of the US (eg heavy industry, steel, pig iron etc) were vital for an industrial economy. however this industrial model was giving way to a post industrial society that was reliant on technical innovation. as a result growth stagnated in the USSR.

dominance of military-industrial complex:
took up 18% of soviet resources and employed 30m out of 150m working population. B’s foreign policy was increasingly focused on intervention in developing countries. these resources could have at lest in part been spent on agri/consumer goods.

all these causes preceded Brezhnev’s rule but became abundantly obvious during his time in power, making it easy to place the blame upon him. however, perhaps this decline was inevitable due to the structure of soviet economy.