Collectivisation of Agriculture in the Soviet Union in the years 1929-1941 was a Triumph for Communist Ideas but a Social and Economic Disaster. How far do you agree with this Opinion?

Authors Avatar

                Shaheen Munshi 62B

Collectivisation of Agriculture in the Soviet Union in the years 1929-1941 was a Triumph for Communist Ideas but a Social and Economic Disaster. How far do you agree with this Opinion? (/40)

Stalin’s policy of collectivisation of agriculture can be seen as a communist triumph yet there were many flaws in this policy that show it wasn’t as successful as it may have seemed. This policy seemed to have also caused the Soviet Union to be plunged into an economic and social disaster, yet there are factors that show that this isn’t absolutely true.

Collectivisation was a policy introduced by Stalin which had the aim of creating an increase in agricultural productivity, as this would help develop the industry in the Soviet Union as a whole. Stalin did this by creating larger agricultural sections where the peasants would farm collectively rather than on individual farms. This policy had a big effect in the Soviet Union on the economy, socially and politically.

Collectivisation can be seen as a triumph for communist ideas because of many reasons. Communism is a political theory, which means abolishing private ownership and supporting collectivism in a classless society. Stalin’s policy meant that this was achieved to a certain extent. The fact that farming was based on collective methods, for example the kolkhoz (collective farms), meant that the rural parts of the Soviet Union were acting on communist ideas i.e. becoming collectivised. This process was sped up by going from, peasants volunteering to be part of a collective farm, to coercion in autumn 1929, where peasants were forced to be part of a collective farm. Communism also means to establish a classless society, which collectivisation also achieved to a certain extent. Stalin made sure that the ‘kulaks’ (rich peasants who were of a capitalist class) were not allowed to be part of any collective farms; instead they were to be deported to places like Siberia. Dekulakisation squads, where party members were sent to the countryside to eliminate the kulaks, was a way in which these ‘class enemies’, as they were labelled as, to be removed so as not to interfere with the classless society that the Soviet Union was trying to build using the idea from Communism. This is an aspect of collectivisation which showed a Communist idea as being successful. A further way in which collectivisation made communist ideas triumphant in the Soviet Union was by the spread of Government control over rural areas. Before Collectivisation was introduced, farmers used to develop their crops on individual farms, but this was not seen as communist as individuals made their own food for themselves, so the fact that Government control extended over the countryside meant that the farmers could now work together to share the profits and food, which is essentially what communism is all about. However, not all of the policies of collectivisation can be said to be a triumph for communist ideas. Collectivisation caused a lot of resistance from the peasants and they reacted to this policy by destroying property and animals in order to prevent the Government taking complete control over them. This consequence of collectivisation did not support any communist ideas such as collectively working together as it just deepened divisions between the peasants and the Government and caused hostility towards the party in power. So, although the policy of collectivisation showed some ideas of communism being triumphant, it was not a complete success for this political ideology.

Join now!

Stalin’s policy of Collectivisation can be seen as a social disaster because of many reasons. One of these reasons is that many of the peasants did not want to be part of collective farms and when they were forced to do so in late 1929; it made people livid and caused the peasants to be deeply angry with the Government. This was not a social success. Also, collectivisation meant that the influence of some traditional social roles such as the village priest was removed. This shows that, socially, the rural areas were weakened as the Government took control by ...

This is a preview of the whole essay