One of the main benefits that the soviet economy benefited from was “rapid industrialisation” All of the sources talk about this and show how there was “economic transformation.” The economy had benefited from the soviet agricultural policy as there was now better machinery and “the change from small- holding, backward peasant farming to large-scale socialist agriculture opened up the economic and cultural progress of the soviet peasantry.” (Source b) On the other hand as great as the new machinery seemed there were some collective farms with hardly any new machinery and there were shortages of the new machinery. As well as this the money that was used on improving agriculture was not used effectively. Peasants who seemed happy were depressed as their homes had been taken and the famine caused around 7 million peasants death. The great depression forced down grain prices and so the USSR did not receive much foreign money on trade. Source B was right to say that many peasants “were psychologically unprepared to become members of collective farms.” Source B does show us that the collective farms were successful but it criticises the way they were run. This is evident when it says “some over enthusiastic officials forced peasants into joining giant collective farms which were unmanageable. Some middle class peasants were mistakenly lumped together with kulaks.” He admits that there were failures but he does not blame the communists this is because it was written in 1981 when the communist party still controlled the Soviet Union.
During the period of 1928-1941, the first second and third five year plans were introduced. These plans were introduced to put central planning at the forefront of the soviet economy. The key features of the plans were the setting of production and output targets which industrial enterprises had to achieve. The plans also set targets to key industries. There were many failures and successes of the five year plans. The first five year plan benefitted the economy as there was increased production and output in electricity (which had trebled), coal, iron, steel (which had doubled) and steel increased by one third. Huge new industries complexes were also built and new tractors were built in Stalingrad and other places to meet the needs of mechanised agriculture. On the other hand the first five year planned also did not benefit the economy as the high targets placed enormous strain on the economy. Everything was in short supply and competition was intense for what was available. There was overproduction and underproduction and many areas were left without supplies and local factories competed for scarce resources. This is only the first five year plans and there were huge problems. As the second and third five year plans were introduced, their evidence of economic success was much greater than the first five year plan. For example the soviet enjoyed “three good years” and by 1937 the USSR was virtually self-sufficient in machine making and metal working, this therefore shows us how the economy was growing from changes in soviet agriculture policy.
Source c differs between opinions as it discusses how the economy has benefited from changes in soviet agriculture policy and how it hasn’t. It shows us how collectivisation helped industrialisation as source c says “no one challenges the view that grain deliveries to the state rose after 1928”and this source also said “one interpretation Is that collectivisation provided the means for rapid industrialisation: collective and state farms supplied cheap grain for export and fed the expanding urban population” This is positive as he said that the country fed towns which helped industrialisation to be successful. The state farms also supplied cheap grain which the state used to pay for imports. On the other hand this source looks at how the economy took a long time to recover from collectivisation as collectivisation “damaged industrial modernisation, because capital for example substantial amounts of machinery, flowed from town to country, not from country to town” also the fact that “peasant households used cash earned in collective farm markets to buy consumer products, thus depriving urban workers” It took a long time to recover from collectivisation as there was famine and disaster, there was a famine which caused around 7 million peasants death, 5 million of which occurred in Ukraine alone. Therefore peasants remained unenthusiastic and agriculture remained inefficient as “collectivisation reduced food output to below the 1928 level, resulting in overall reductions in output.” Some say this was a worse performance than 1913 tsarist Russia!
Therefore in conclusion the soviet economy has benefited from changes in soviet agricultural policy as there was huge industrialisation, women became more educated and the peasantry way of living changed. At the time where mass industrialisation was needed and needed to be done fast I think that collectivisation was probably the only way to get the grain that they needed. On the other hand I do believe that the soviet economy did not benefit from changes in soviet agriculture policy as there was a huge famine where 7 million peasants died. The Kulaks were exterminated and the economy was not benefitting as the peasants were protesting and had no incentive to work. There was a shortage of new machinery and not enough grain was being produced. A lot of peasants hoarded their grain. Also because a lot of grain was being exported there was not enough for the peasants to eat. This is therefore why I believe that the economy did not benefit that much, although there were benefits to the economy there were a lot more disadvantages and it took a lot of time for the economy to get over collectivisation.
