Collectivisation Essay PDF

“The entire country transformed. Millions died and millions more changed their way of life irrevocably.” How valid is this assessment of the impact of collectivisation? Introduction: Background - In mid-1929, less than 5% of peasants were on collective or state farms. Collective farms were introdu...

“The entire country transformed. Millions died and millions more changed their way of life irrevocably.” How valid is this assessment of the impact of collectivisation? Introduction: Background - In mid-1929, less than 5% of peasants were on collective or state farms. Collective farms were introduced to improve efficiency and free up manpower to work in factories, as the state could supply the collective farms with labour-saving devices like tractors. In January 1930, Stalin announced that around 25% of the grain producing areas were to be collectivised by the end of the year. This took even his own officials by surprise as they had not anticipated the speed at which it was going to take place. However several factors, including the grain procurement crisis of 1928-29, had convinced Stalin that he needed to break the stranglehold that the peasants had over the Soviet economy. Historiography - Historians tend to agree that Collectivisation was largely negative. C. Ward = Collectivisation “Destroyed the way of life” of the peasants and Robert Conquest = used as a tool to “break” peasantry, who Stalin believed were standing in the way of progress and modernity. LOA - Considering the economic, social and political implications of collectivisation it is absolutely valid to state that lives were changed (for the worse) an that the policy killed millions. Paragraph 1: Economic impact Aim of collective farm is to meet grain quotas and feed the industrialisation Most common type of collective farm was the Kolkhoz, comprising 50-100 households where all land, tools and animals had to be pooled and the peasants farmed the land as one unit. Each household could keep one private plot of up to one acre. Despite some positive achievements -​ State was able to collect the grain it needed to feed the rapidly growing workforce in the ities and to sell abroad to pay for industrial equipment -​ Dispossessed peasants from overpopulated countryside fled to towns and provided labour in growing factories. However mostly negative -​ Robert Service argues that except from 1930, mass Collectivisation meant that it was not until the mid 1950s that agriculture began to regain the level of output achieved in the last years before WW1. -​ In 1913 the harvest produced 80.1 million tonnes of grain, apart from in 1930 grain production between 1928 and 1935 never exceeded 75 million tonnes.  -​ Meat production didn’t meet pre-Collectivisation levels until after 1935 -​ There was an over reliance on private plots which produced 52% of vegetables, 57% of fruit and 70% of meat to Soviet consumers. Overall - negative impact. Peasants lack incentive to make the Collectivisation system work, they were supposed to get a share of the profits of the farms but there was never any profits. Paragraph 2: Social/Political impact - kulaks, peasant resistance and famine Another aim of collectivisation is to break potential resistance among the peasantry, (Kulaks and Ukranians). Kulaks were identified as a class enemy by Stalin, used terror and propaganda to terrify the middle and poorer peasants into joining kolkhozes. Many peasants were unwilling to identify Kulaks, many of whom were friends and relatives. Many local party officials were reluctant to identify kulaks who were good farmers and key to meeting grain targets. Stalin responds by sending an army of 25,000 urban party activists to help revolutionise the countryside and root out kulaks - supported by the OGPU and the military. Some success in breaking the Kulak resistance -​ Up to 10 million kulaks were deported to Siberia by the end of the Collectivisation process -​ In some areas poorer peasants denounced their neighbours' kulaks - to get their hands on their animals and equipment. However -​ Sheila Fitzpatrik argues that the peasants developed all sorts of ways of subverting farms and turning matters to their advantage. -​ Forms of resistance: peasants rioted, burned crops, tools and houses rather than turn them over to the state. Organised raids to recover animals that have been taken into collectives. -​ Slaughtered animals rather than hand them over to the Kolkhoz, 25-30% of all cattle, pigs and sheep were slaughtered. -​ Knowing that further resistance could lead to collapse of grain production, Stalin ultimately called for a return to the voluntary principle and an end to coercion, huge numbers of peasants abandoned collective farms. One of the worst impacts was famine. -​ By the end of 1931 the state had collected 22.8 million tonnes of grain, at the same time as grain production had dropped (because of the chaos of collectivisation) and by 1932 famine in parts of Ukraine which had particularly high targets for grain procurement.  -​ Robert Conquest argues that there were 7 million deaths in the famine of 1932-1934, equated to a deliberate genocide. Overall - negative, failed to break the peasants entirely and caused the deaths of millions. Conclusion: Summary of arguments Economic positives vs negatives social/political achievements vs negatives Final summary of argument