To What Extent Can Collectivisation Be Considered a Success?

375 Words2 Pages
To what extent can collectivisation be considered a success? It can be said that collectivisation was indeed the exact opposite of success. Instead, it can be described as the main reason millions of the Russian population had lived in terror and subsequently died. It is also the outstanding reason to why large parts of Russia and the Ukraine were invaded by famine. Collectivisation was the process by which Russian agriculture was reformed. Before the introduction of collectivisation, peasants had worked on small farms with limited technology. However, by introducing collectivisation these small farms would be joined together to create large ‘collective’ farms. The aims of these new farms were to pool labour and resources, therefore leading to a more efficient system. In addition to this, the state provided tractors and fertilisers to help modernise production and make operations more efficient, just like other western countries such as the U.K, U.S.A, and France etc. However, the tractors provided by the state were built to a very poor quality and could barely drive off the work floor. This is due to factory managers being under so much pressure to build a certain amount of tractors. Often, these managers were shot if their factory did not reach the intended quota. Collectivisation can be described as the Communist’ Party long-term aim for agriculture. However, very few Communist could have predicted the speed with which this system was introduced. Collectivisation occurred due to three factors: economic, ideological and political. In terms of economical factors, 1926 saw record grain harvest for the USSR. Russia was able to conjure up 77 million tonnes of grain during 1926 which was its record grain harvest. However, during 1927, 1928, 1929 harvest were all poorer. The highest harvest of the three years was during 1928, peaking at 73 million tonnes of grain.
Open Document