Was the policy of collectivisation a success? Flashcards
State the 3 key ways you can argue collectivisation was a success
Collectivisation fulfilled most of its primary objectives;
1 - Elimination of the Peasant + Kulak threat
2 - Finance Industrialisation/Exportation + Mechanisation.
3 - Production of Food via Kolkhoz/Sovkhoz + by 1941 all farms had successfully been collectivised.
Explain the 1st key point to argue collectivisation was a success
1 - Elimination of the Peasant + Kulak threat;
- Before collectivisation peasants were capable of both driving up the price of grain by hoarding it, causing food shortages in the cities and enabling them to charge a higher price. This was most successfully done during the scissor crisis, where the price of goods became increasingly high, and resulted in the peasants hoarding grain to drive the price back down, causing a massive food shortage in the city.
Thus collectivisation was successful in preventing peasants direct control over the grain + instead, they simply worked on the collective farms, providing the state with grain under the supervision of a party member to ensure order. This gave the state direct control over where and how it got its grain, and prevented peasant resistance. For the first time the soviet regime had extended it power across the countryside, ensuring the peasants would never again be able to resist the regime which reinforced starlins control within the USSR. Class difference’s in countryside were abolished + apart from existence of small private slots any remains of capitalism had been destroyed.
- Over 15% of the kulak population being deported or killed. Kulaks were richer, more skilled, peasants, who would usually hire farm labourers to work on their farms. destruction of kulaks was good both economically + politically for Stalin in removing key obstacles to the communist regime + it was this brutal treatment of kulaks which also frightened poorer peasants into submission.
This allowed Stalin to claim to have destroyed an ideological enemy, allowing the USSR to move closer to true socialism, and also destroyed the largest opposition to collectivisation.
Explain the 2nd key point to argue collectivisation was a success
2 - Finance industrialisation/exportation + Mechanisation;
- Russian farms were previously outdated due to manually intensive, farming techniques. This decreased the efficiency of Russian agriculture by reducing how much land or food could be cultivated or harvested a day + prevented the amount of seeds that could be planted, decreasing how much grain could be produced.
- Collectivisation led to the development of Machine Tractor Stations (MTS), which provided combine harvesters and tractors, as well as vets, techniations, surgeons and surveyors. 2,400 MTS were established throughout the USSR. This increased the amount of vehicles available, and resulted in 95% of thrashing + 48% of harvesting done by machines.
Thus MTS increased the amount of grain grown in the USSR, which could be used to feed the expanding industrial population, stimulating industrialization, or could be sold abroad in exchange for industrial equipment that could not be made in the USSR + increased efficiency so less workers were needed on the farms, allowing for some peasants to be diverted to the city to work in the factories, going someway to solve the labour shortage there.
Explain the 3rd key point to argue collectivisation was a success
3 - Production of Food via Kolkhoz/Sovkhoz + by 1941 all farms had successfully been collectivised;
- The utilisation of 2 specialised state farms Kolkhoz/Sovkhoz was successful In increasing production of grain. Kolkhoz were typical state farms combining small initial farms into cooperative structures + Kolkhoz were relatively smaller in number but much Karger in scale which focused on specialised large scale production particularly suited to grain.
- In 1930 Stalin allowed peasants to have a private slot of land in the Kolkhoz from which any produce became the private property of the individual. This was very successful peasants made full use of it however private slots only made u less than 4% of private land in the USSR but they produced between 25 and 35% of agricultural output.
- By 1931 the site claimed 22.8 million tonnes of grain was collectivised + by 1941 all state farms had been successfully collectivised.
State the 3 Key reasons to argue the policy of collectivisation was not a success
1 - The elimination of the Kulaks had profound negative effects
2 - Misconceptions regarding Mechanisation
3 - Collectivisation came at a huge price + logistical sides of the policy was weak.
Explain the 1st key reason to argue collectivisation was not a success
1 - The elimination of the Kulaks had profound negative effects
- The persecution of kulak class contributed too as hug lack of skilled labour + knowledge which in turn exacerbated the Great Famine of 1932-1934.
- The USSR was subjected to famine which killed around 7 million. It was hard to forgive as the government refused to admit any failure of collectivisation as it had become such a powerful weapon to break down peasant resistance. It was made worse by and human error but collectivisation harshly exacerbated the economic situation as peasants were squeezed so tightly w grain production requirements.
By 1931 state had collected 22.8 million tons of grain, enough to feed cities, export and still finance industrialisation - and yet there was still a mass famine due to;
- The chaos + upheaval of forced collectives
- Lack of farming knowledge + effective skills (lost in the persecution of kulaks)
Explain the 2nd key reason to argue collectivisation was not a success
2 - Misconceptions regarding Mechanisation
- Mechanization was not as big a success as the soviets claimed. Most machines in use in farming were simple and still manually intensive, requiring large numbers of workers to maintain and follow after them.
E.g. combine harvesters simply cut the grain, rather than gathering it up as well, meaning that workers had to stand behind it and gather the grain themselves. This reduced the number of workers that could be sent to the cities to work in the factories.
- Tractors were also rare and unreliable, with 1 MTS for every 40 collectives and many breakdowns, resulting in a lack of machines, meaning that peasants still had to use outdated techniques. This reduced the numbers of peasants that could be released from the farms to work in the factories, slowing down the pace of industrialization. It also meant that less grain could be harvested, as the lack of machines reduced how much grain could be cut in a day.
Thus collectivization was not a success, as machines were unreliable, few in number and too simplistic. As a secondary effect of this, industrialization was slowed down, as grain could not be exported abroad + workers were still required to conduct manually intensive farm work, reducing the number of peasants who were required to work in the factories.
Explain the 3rd key reason to argue collectivisation was not a success
3 - Collectivisation came at a huge price + logistical sides of the policy was weak.
- The logistical side of the plan was weak + policy of collectivisation came at a huge price for the soviet people who suffered imesly + 7 million died in the great famine of 1932-1934 which was exacerbated by collectivisation.
In Feb 1930 whilst the party claimed half of peasant households being collectivised was a breakthrough + success whereas ion reality it was an agricultural disaster. The most enterprising peasants had been shot or deported leaving Russia without skilled workers + ability which I turn disrupted agricultural production + peasants slaughtered 25/30 % of animals in response to forced collectivisation.
What would you argue n your conclusion to a question on wether collectivisation was a success?
Overall the policy of collectivisation was a slow + brute way of Stalin achieving his economical + political ends. Whilst there was a abundance of issues with the logistical side of the policy Stalin did, for the first time, extent power across the countryside ensuring peasants could never again resist the regime + other than the distance of small private slots of land any remains of capitalism and been eradicated. Stalin equally achieved his aims for procurement of grain + by 1941 all state farms had been successfully collectivised. However he ‘success’ came at a huge cost as demonstrated by the great famine of 1932-1934.
