With what justification has the period 1928-1939 been called 'Russian industrial revolution'.

The foremost justification behind the Russian industrial revolution is the pre-planned agricultural policy of collectivisation, which laid the foundations for industrial reform and advancement. Without the agricultural improvements; 9 out of 10 Russians would have been toiling the field in order to make enough food for the nation, rendering it impossible for workers to progress to the cities. Once collective farms were making enough food for themselves and enough to distribute to others, there became available superfluous workers to send to the cities/factories. There was however major problems involved with collectivisation mainly attributed to its lack of organisation and expert opinion. Uncertainty arose surrounding issues such as pay. Whether peasants were to be paid in food or money; whether they were paid by the months/work completed or tools contributed. Some peasants were allowed to keep their livestock while other collective farms demanded everything be collectivised. The chaos caused by collectivisation, smaller harvests and savage state demands led to widespread famine. The question arose as to how the government could guarantee food supplied to towns if the peasants farming the land were starving to death in their millions. The collectivisation policy allocated surplus workers to progress to city factories, building an industrial economy, although the high social cost (death toll), lack of sufficient foods and supplies, and unorganised structure detracted from its successfulness.

In the first 5-year plan Stalin’s demands placed on industries produced distinct accomplishments in new and existing industries, employment openings and the modernisation of Russia prompting people to call it an industrial revolution, however the frantic pace applied brought about high social cost (poor conditions) and demanded impossible targets. Of the five main industries of electricity, coal, pig iron, oil and steel, it was only oil that achieved its target of 21.4 million tonnes from a previous 11.7 million tonnes in 1927-8. Within the cities an additional 13 million people relocated during the first 5-year plan. Unemployment was virtually non-existent; no one was without a job, which contrasted sharply with the depression of the West. Many Russians moved to the cities to escape collectivisation or were brought to established cities to increase the number of workers there, causing huge problems of overcrowding. Others volunteered or were forced to move to remote areas such as the Urals or Siberia to establish new cities and industries. Obscuring the smooth path to complete modernisation and industrialisation were obstacles about how to feed, clothe and house the millions that had relocated to the cities and towns. By 1929 food and manufactured consumer goods were on a rationing system. The problems faced; lack of expertise in the field, insufficient machinery, knowledge of how to use it and not enough skilled technicians to repair broken parts and just simply not enough time caused production targets not to be met. Instead of slowing the pace, the government blamed their failures on sabotages and ‘dim-witted’ peasants. The haste instituted by Stalin caused gaps to be caused in the foundations of industry, lack of comforts in everyday life for workers weakening the justification to call 1928-39 an industrial ‘revolution’ although considerable advances were made during the first 5-year plan.

The second 5-year plan 1933-37 produced additional advances in industry although targets were scaled down and by now collectivisation was widespread yet repression and famine continued to occur. The Soviet people could not keep up with the frantic pace demanded by Stalin and consequently in 1934 new figures that had been scaled down, were released. The resulting targets for all industries were again not achieved except for steel, which produced 17.7 million tonnes from the 5.9 million tones of 1932-3. The grain and livestock (pigs, cattle, goats and sheep) production did however increase with larger portions of soviet countryside cultivated by collective farms. By 1937 9 out of every 10 peasants had been collectivised. The urban population continued to swell with an additional 16 million new residents moving to already overcrowded towns. There were however improvements with food rationing ended in 1935 and living standards for the workers’ beginning to improve. Many more employment opportunities were introduced and added benefits such as education –primary schooling for workers’ children, and health –increasing number of people had access to better medical facilities. By the end of the second 5-year plan soviets were still hungry, ill clothed and crowded into inadequate housing yet they no longer lived with the threats of periodic famine, had better living standards and greater industry.

The sacrifices and haste demanded during the 5-year plans of 1928-39 in order to modernise the USSR do not justify revolution as they take away success from the economic improvements. Sacrifices made were

1st para: reason 1 collectivisation

2nd para: reason 2; 1st five year plan successes and failures            

3rd: 2nd 5 year plan success and failures

4th: It can be argued that word ‘revolution’ is not justified as the [economical and] social success can be disputed. Stalin’s grounds for such haste was the fear that Russia’s ‘backwardness’ would cause her to be dominated by more modern countries and perhaps even overtaken. Anything could be and was sacrificed for this cause including the communist Marxist ideal of egalitarianism. Also sacrificed cilivised values, health of ppl(famine) and totured. Basically huge social cost: the terror

-mininmum 750,000 in labour camps by 1930. millions died. kulaks deported, shootings, exile

5th: Although the improvements in industry made during 1928-39 provide reason to imply Russia went through a revolution, the inconsistencies conflict with the total success and change. Rather call ‘russian industrial reformation defined as:

sorce foreign? purpose to inform, cultural comprehension, hostility, area of report, nonrussian, trained to observe, in the field vs no influence of environment/culture, historical evaluating skills, political status of writer, and year written