At face value, social consequences regarding the peasantry can be considered the most important negative result of collectivisation of the countryside. After the government passed the policy of seizing grain, rural areas found themselves deprived of food, and, as a result, widespread famine became a problem amongst the peasantry, leaving seven million people dead. As this came as a direct result of Stalin’s collectivisation policy, it would be argued that the titanic human tragedy was the most important result of collectivisation of agriculture. However, from a Stalinist point of view these figures would be insignificant as it did not affect Stalin’s long-term view of industrialising Russia. In fact, the collectivisation of agriculture saw mass migration from the countryside to the city in order to escape famine (as many as nineteen million people by 1939), which exacerbated urbanisation and relieved the economic pressure on the land, acting in Stalin’s favour. Therefore, although at face value the negative social results of collectivisation of the countryside can be seen as most important, it is merely illusory from a Stalinist point of view as it did not affect the long-term plan to modernise and industrialise Russia. Furthermore, although the famine lead to mass migration from the countryside to the cities can be seen as an important result of collectivisation of agriculture, it is it would not have been possible without the imposed communist control of the countryside.
Additionally, the ideological result of collectivisation of agriculture can be considered to be the most important negative consequence with Stalin’s invention of the ‘kulaks’, a class of rich peasants he accused of hoarding their grain when workers in cities were on the brink of starvation. This can be argued to be the most important factor alongside famine in the countryside with the introduction of Article 61 (Communist Party and the OGPU were given power to deport people to labour camps). This, alongside ‘dekulakisation’ and ‘the twenty-five-thousanders’, resulted in around ten million people being exiled, ending up in prison camps or as slave labourers on one of Stalin’s great industrialisation projects, and of these, two to three million dead. This clearly gives evidence to why the introduction of the ‘kulaks’ was the most important result of the collectivisation of agriculture, however, from a Stalinist point of view this was significant as it did not affect his long-term plan to industrialise Russia, and if anything, gave Stalin a larger working force to help industrialise the country, meaning that it was only important to an extent in contrast to the imposed communist control of the countryside.
Political successes can also be considered to be the most important positive result of collectivisation of agriculture as the proportion of collectivised land rose with every year, for example rising 98% by 1941, which eradicated the peasantry as a result of negative social factors (regarding famine leading to millions dying). This left Stalin with less opposition towards his government policies leaving him as a stronger leader . However, also these results could be considered important, they were necessary but not sufficient in Stalin’s long-term goal of modernising Russia as they only strengthen his power and authority over the USSR in contrast to making an impact on his policy. Political successes merely exacerbated the revolutionary effect of imposed communist control of the countryside.
To conclude, the imposed communist control of the countryside was the most important positive result of collectivisation of agriculture as it was necessary in setting the ground work for Stalin’s policy to industrialise Russia, meaning that it would not have been possible without it. At face value, other factors such as the multiple deaths in the peasantry as a result of famine and the invention of the ‘kulaks’, can be seen as important negative results of collectivisation of agriculture. However, from a Stalinist point of view this consequence can be seen as insignificant due to the fact that it did not affect Stalin’s long term goal of industrialising Russia, and if anything, helped to strengthen urbanisation of the cities, supporting the regime. Furthermore, although political successes can be seen as important results of the collectivisation of agriculture, they were merely necessary but not sufficient for Stalin’s industrialisation of Russia, and only helped in exacerbating the positive results of the imposed communist control of the countryside.
by
Georgia
