• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"Collectivisation was undoubtedly a real revolution from above in the countryside." Do the results of collectivisation justify this conculusion?

Extracts from this document...


"Collectivisation was undoubtedly a real revolution from above in the countryside." Do the results of collectivisation justify this conculusion? Stalin's policy of collectivisation has often been accredited to have ruined Russian agriculture and unnecessarily caused untold misery to many millions of simple peasants. In this essay I aim to analyse whether Stalin's programme of collectivisation in the 1930s was a the "revolution from above" of which he claimed it was, or if it was in fact an overly brutal and hideously ineffective policy. This term is used to explain a process whereby a government uses its power to instate drastic change, with presumably beneficial results. In this essay I will argue that Stalin's policy of collectivisation did not succeed at all as a revolution, and was indeed a hindrance to Russian agriculture. I aim to answer the question through looking at Stalin's success in three main areas, economic, political and social (due to the sheer mortality rate). ...read more.


Thus it would be fair to say that collectivisation actually caused economic regression, and was flawed in the progressive, revolutionary sense as well as economically. Collectivisation was not just used for economic gain, but for political gain. Harsh policy was designed to break the peasantry and the system of liquidisation of the Kulaks served to rid the countryside of a potentially "capitalist" element. The peasantry were never again able to hold the state to ransom as they had done in 1921, as through a system of control and brutalisation they came to realise the awful power of Stalin and the Russian state, or as Viola states "The process of collectivisation served to brutalise and perhaps atomise the rural population". From the accounts of Vasily Grossman and Leo Kopelev it is possible to ascertain the extent to which the Russian people were indoctrinated into believing Stalin's processes were justified, and that the liquidisation of the Kulaks was necessary, or as Kopelev puts it "Our great goal was the universal triumph of Communism". ...read more.


Even at its lowest this represents a sickening disregard for human life, and when it is considered that the mortality figures are worse than the effects of "the Great Purge or any of the famines during the Tsarist Period" (Gordon), it is clear that no real revolution took place. Surely no progress is being made when the famines of the Collectivist era are considered to be worse than those of the Tsarist, especially when it is considered that many of the famines were effectively engineered by Stalin, due to importation of already scarce grain. It is argued that life during the Collectivist era was not as uncomfortable as is often suggested, with cr�ches set up for women workers children and literacy classes started for women. However attendance to these classes was compulsory and harsh punishments were imposed for absence. Therefore it is conclusion that by no means did Stalin achieve a revolution from above, except perhaps in political terms, which only served to undermine his economic policy, rather I would argue that collectivisation represented an unmitigated disaster for the Russian peasantry. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. 'The Five Year Plans brought glory to Stalin and misery to his people' - ...

    Even in February 1930, when the government boasted that the majority of the peasants handed over their land for collectivisation, the grain shortage problem had not been solved. The result was a famine in the cities as food production fell drastically with grain production falling from 83.5 million in 1930 to 69.6 million in 1932.

  2. The blance sheet for russia.

    This produced a chronic political problem. The Soviet structures simply ceased to operate. The soviets, as organs of workers' rule, fell into disuse. How could it be otherwise given the economic and social conditions that prevailed? The All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the supreme authority of the republic, only met annually between November 1918 and December 1922.

  1. To What Extent was Collectivisation an Economic and Political Disaster

    In terms of Stalin this was fantastic as the more collectivised farms that there were then the more control and power that he had over the countryside, which tended to be a very difficult place to control in the years of the Tsars.

  2. Find out the real cause of the French Revolution

    Their ways of living were considerably filthy and disgusting. As taken from Arthur Young's Travels in France: "...their town of Combourg one of the most brutal, filthy places that can be seen; mud houses, no windows, and a pavement so broken as to impede all passengers, but ease none."3 This

  1. Russia's sense of uniqueness

    * 1924 L dies of a stroke. * Beginning of struggle 4 power 4 2 reasons- 1) there isn't an ultimate office to aspire to (job) 2)Publicly at least all the patagonists (everyone) are committed 2 the idea of collective leadership. * Early part of struggle 2 keep ppl out of power than actual achieving power.

  2. Stalin Coursework - sources explaining collectivisation and its effects.

    that had to abide by the 'Socialist Realism Policy' and had to be subjective towards Stalin. The lack of restrictions imposed on 'Reuters' is apparent in this particular passage, as there is a lot of admonition of the Soviet way of life.

  1. To what extent had the policy of collectivisation achieved its aims by 1941?

    This was now an aim of collectivisation. Stalin saw the elimination of the kulak class as a manner by which he could 'socialise' the peasantry and in turn a vital stepping-stone towards achieving the 'perfect' socialist state. This target was inarguably met by 1941 and in fact perhaps a number of years earlier.

  2. Was the defeat in the war the real cause of the Russian Revolution

    his banquet The autocracy was very important to the tsar and his people. Pobedonostev brought in Russification which preserved autocracy and opposed change; this was the opposite of what Stolypin and Witte were doing as they were trying to bring Russia into Industrialisation.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work