Though collectivisation may have had short term boosts to the economy but the effects of collectivisation were disastrous. For that the harvest of 1933 was nine million tons less than that of 1926 and the number of pigs dropped by 65%. These are the results of the peasants rebelling against the soviets forced collectivization. These peasant rebellions were damaging to the economy as its effects emanates to the city
Stolypin believed that the encouragement of a class such as the Kulaks would make them hostile to further change therefore more conservative and loyal to the Tsar as the Tsar had made them wealthy. Furthermore, peasants made up 85% of the population of Russia and a majority relied on agriculture for their income. Reforms that would please the ‘dark masses’ would strengthen the tsarist regime. Another reason for reforming agriculture was to oppress peasant unrest. In Poltava and Kharkov provinces, mass impoverishment of the peasants, which was exacerbated by the poor harvests of 1901 led to 40,000 peasants took part in an uprising where they also ransacked 150 landlord properties.
On the other hand, the growth in population compared with national output shows less production per head, and therefore less efficient production. His policies did little for agriculture considering 80% of the population were rural peasants. It is thought he focused too much on heavy industry, neglecting others like light engineering. Finally, Russia became overly dependent on foreign loans (never good if a financial crisis were to occur and foreign loans have to be repaid). Tariffs making goods scarce and heavy taxation meant prices for Russian consumers increased, whilst their wages stayed low.
To achieve self- sufficiency: • Stalin wanted to make the USSR less dependent – especially on Western manufactured goods. • It was important that the USSR had a strong industrial base to produce the goods people needed. • He wanted to make Russia more self-sufficient and less dependent. To increase grain supplies: • Stalin wanted to end the dependence of the economy on a backward agricultural system – he did not want the new socialist state to depend on the peasantry for agricultural supplies. To move towards a socialist society: • According to Marxist theory, socialism could only be created in a society where the majority of the population were workers – but in 1928, only 20% were workers in the USSR.
Collectivisation was introduced by Mao in 1958, in 1958 production rate of food was at 200 million tonnes, but by 1960 the production rate had fallen to 143.5 million. Within 2 years one of Mao’s own policies had caused a fall in production rate of 56.5 million. Despite the figures Mao insisted that many peasants were growing more food than necessary and keeping some for themselves, Mao accused the peasants of being ‘inherently capitalist’ and that they were against being a part of a communist state. The policy of collectivisation contributed hugely to the scale of the famine; the peasants resented the change as they didn’t have enough land to farm their crops, on top of this the authorities believed that they needed to be ‘strictly controlled and directed’. This attitude towards the peasants amplified the issues of collectivisation and caused scale of the famine to worsen.
At the same time as encouraging inflow of foreign capital, he limited the import of foreign goods leading to protective tariffs being set up as a means of safeguarding Russia’s young domestic industries, such as steel production. However, given its backwardness Russia was starting from a much lower level of production compared to many Western societies. Likewise, Russia was experiencing a massive growth in population and so Per capita production was quite low. Also, while Witte’s policies had a great impact on the expansion
.” (Document 9) As shown by charts illustrating both industrial and agricultural growth (Document s 2, 3, 6), Stalin’s economic venues helped Russia to become a modern industrial society and let to Russia’s rise to a world power. Also the focus on heavy industry made to help increase the grandeur of the state. Under a command economy, in which the government controls all decisions made concerning the economy and personal lives, Russia with no doubt grew strong. Stalin said “To slow down would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind are beaten.
The collectivisation of agriculture provided Stalin with the idea that further industrial growth was necessary in order to fuel the country’s economy and diminish the burden of Russia’s backwards nature. He wanted Russia to become self-sufficient and not have to rely on the West for anything so the first 5 year plan was established in the hope that changes could be made. It can be perceived that the first plan did not achieve a great deal but
Much like Tsarist reforming leaders, Witte and Alexander II, a poor economic situation also significantly influenced Lenin’s reforms, showing a nuanced continuity between factors influencing reforms in the Tsarist and Communist state. The peasants were at first discontented by the reform, for” a tax of 10% was imposed upon the harvest” (Acton), leading to crop prices temporarily rising, causing a famine reminiscent of the Tsarist age, indicating little change. However a year later the grain harvest increased by 19 million tonnes, this proved to be significant as the impacts of the NEP allowed Russian society to become more self-sufficient, without the need for imports. The reform was also significant, as it encouraged the growth of a bourgeoisie in the form of NEP men; older Bolsheviks viewed them as a threat to the socialist government, yet they accepted that a middle class was a necessary step towards complete socialism. The view that Lenin’s reforms were significant, therefore is credible, for despite gaining a government that had been ravaged by two wars, and rapid inflation, after about eight years Lenin’s NEP encouraged great economic growth, thus consolidating the position of the Bolshevik government in Russian society based upon Lenin’s work as a reforming
Grain production levels had only reach the same levels as in the Tsarist times. With the growing population a famine was caused by this and millions died, with the most notably in Ukraine. This shows that collectivisation had improved, but the growth was not very significant. This shows that for the production rate collectivisation didn’t improve agriculture. One of the aims of collectivation was to Dekulakisation.