Collectivisation had one particular goal of forcing peasants to move from working on the land to new industrial areas, however, as these peasants were only trained to work on the land, this 'new workforce' in industrial sectors suffered from a severe lack of training and thus were mostly unskilled for the job, despite being highly trained in agriculture (Millar 1982 p65). Additionally, they were also not used to the factory life and urban living. These factors obviously hindered the chances of stimulating the economy, as collectivisation produced an unskilled and demoralised workforce, which is something that can also be seen as a negative social consequence of collectivisation. On the collective farms, however, the standards of living dramatically fell, as Stalin allocated the resources to heavy industry and the cities, whilst the policy also eliminated the village handcraft industry, something that had provided goods for the people, and the "economic independence of the peasant" (Millar 1982 p61). Furthermore, peasants reacted very badly to imposed collectivisation, as under it they had to forfeit property to collective farms, whilst the state forced them to sell their grain to the state at a very low price. The result of this is that peasants would take drastic measures, such as slaughtering livestock, burning crops and leaving whole tracks unsown. In some areas "as much as 50 per cent of the crop was left in fields, and was either not collected at all or was ruined in the threshing" (Tottle 1987 p94). This therefore displays that the implementation of collectivisation also had a dramatic consequences on the economy, as many crops and about 50 percent of livestock and livestock products (such as manure) were lost (Millar 1982 p65). However, whilst this appears to be a complete failure, the actual aim of the Bolsheviks was achieved, which was to eliminate the economic dependence of the peasant and create a method to supply grain to the cities (Moore 1966 p73). Furthermore, a further success of collectivisation for the Bolsheviks was that the policy released the requirement of manpower in rural areas, and created jobs in the cities (Moore 1966 p73).This was key to Stalin’s planned industrialisation process.
Collectivisation also had a dramatic effect on the Soviet Union socially as well as economically. As aforementioned, collectivisation was used to move resources from the rural areas to urban areas, thus 'sucking the agricultural economy dry' to allow rapid industrialisation. However, there was no real surplus created to expend on industry, and much grain was seized by the state. In the Ukraine alone, after 1935, the state was able to buy grain at an extremely discounted price, and seize over half of the output from farms and sell "at higher prices in the cities, to the peasants themselves, and abroad" (Encyclopedia of Ukraine 2001) . This was a frequent occurrence across the Soviet Union, and thus resulted in famine in the countryside. Although there were significant positive consequences of collectivisation, these came in exchange for huge human sacrifice, and collectivisation is considered as the main reason for the drastic famine, which was a major social consequence in the Soviet Union. The famine in the Soviet Union occurred in the early 1930s and resulted in the deaths of millions, particularly in the farming areas of the Soviet Union, including areas such as the "Ukraine, the Volga Valley, the Northern Caucasus region, and Kazakhstan" (Engerman 2003 p194). Overall there was an estimated "eight and a half million victims of famine" (Ellman 2005 p828). Although the farms were producing food, and would thus be the place expected to be least likely to suffer from famine, this was not the case and it was these areas that were the most effected by famine, as their grain was seized and they were forbidden to eat their own crops, and if somebody was caught stealing collective farm 'property' then under the decree of August 7th they faced a ten year prison sentence. The punishment increased if they were a kulak to the death penalty (Ellman 2007 p668). Due to the vast levels of starvation in the rural areas, there was a mass wave of migration, and authorities dealt with this problem by not allowing migration without a passport, something that the rural population had no right to have so were thus forced to remain in their home villages and left to starve, and people who were disobedient to this law faced severe penalties, such as being forced to work in a Gulag (a forced labour camp) (Ellman 2007 p668). There was also a food crisis in the urban areas, where the amount of food available per head certainly decreased, especially in 1930, however the issue was not as severe as in the rural region of the Soviet Union (Millar 1982 p65). Additionally, another consequence that collectivisation had socially in the Soviet Union in relation to the famine was that as people were starving, many engaged in acts of cannibalism, such as in the Ukraine, where "cannibalism has become a commonplace” (Dalrymple 1964 p262). This entire disaster of famine was ‘man-made’ as it was directly caused by collectivisation (Dalrymple 1964 p263). Collectivisation also affected the Soviet Union socially in ways other than famine. Due to the policies reliance on rapid industrialisation there were major cultural changes that had to occur simultaneously. An example of this was in Turkmenistan, where collectivisation caused a shift in the production of crops to cotton (Edgar 2004 p296).This change caused a great uproar in the region that had its own traditions and norms and the peasants of Turkmenistan made their views extremely clear they disagreed with the policy and engaged in protest methods such as passive resistance (Edgar 2004 p296).
The political consequences of collectivisation is that the policy was used in order to spread communism to the countryside and eliminate the class of the kulaks (Millar 1982 p63), and as the majority of the Soviet Union had become collectivised so early on in the collectivisation process, this can be seen as a success for Stalin. Furthermore, collectivisation was not only used to defeat any “peasant obstructionism”, but also to remove any factions in the Party that would ever oppose Stalin (Davies cited by Millar 1982 p64). Stalin used this policy to “create an atmosphere in which the policies of the party leadership could no longer... be challenged, even within the party” (Davies cited by Millar 1982 p64). There were numerous problems that emerged in the Soviet Union at the time relating to collectivisation, and Stalin used the kulaks as a scapegoat, and accused them of causing all of the Soviet Union's economic and social issues, whilst also stating that they were responsible of sabotage and branded them as being anti-communist and therefore 'anti-Soviet Union'. Furthermore, Stalin portrayed them as controlling the food supply and exportable grain reserve of the state, whilst also hoarding food for their own consumption, and thus not complying with the new rules imposed by collectivisation (Lewin 1966 p200). Stalin therefore declared that collectivisation eventually would end their monopoly and thus solve the Soviet Union's economic problems, which, as aforementioned, it did not completely solve the issue. This political consequence also created social unrest in the Soviet Union, as there was now a new 'class enemy'. With propaganda the kulaks quickly became a term used to describe any peasant who opposed collectivisation and were viewed as a 'capitalist throwback' (Lewin 1966 p204). Stalin thus proceeded to eliminate the kulak class to bolster his position as the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union. To do this and consolidate his power, Stalin purged many people, with the reported number of kulaks and their relatives who had died in labour camps in the years of 1932-1940 to be roughly 390,000. 'Former' kulaks and their families made up the majority of the number of the Great Purges, with around 670,000 arrested and around 376,000 executed (Figes 2007 p240). Whilst this is a significant political consequence of collectivisation, as the reason for the process of dekulakisation was largely as part of the collectivisation drive, Stalin cemented his power over the Soviet Union. This is also an important social consequence, as the mass loss of lives displays that Stalin failed in terms of ensuring the progress of the country in a social aspect, and this also had its effect economically, as many of these kulaks held a high social position in society as they were the more prosperous peasants and were men "whose wealth came from usury or trading rather than from agriculture" (Lewin 1966 p189). Thus this can be seen as being beneficial to the economy had they not been eliminated, as before the revolution the kulaks had been responsible for"38% of the country's grain output" (Lewin 1966 p190).
Conclusively, collectivisation enjoyed some successes, such as the increase in grain procurement. However, overall the consequences were mainly negative and lead to a famine that killed millions and an unnecessary terror on the kulaks, which eliminated some key business minds and thus was a negative consequence in all three aspects discussed in this essay. Furthermore, not only did collectivisation lead to the deaths of millions, but it also affected the livestock numbers and crops greatly, as livestock was slaughtered or died due to lack of feed on the farms and crops were burned as opposed to being handed over to the state. Additionally, although in theory the goal of collectivisation to move the workers in rural areas to new industrial roles seems perfectly reasonable to achieve rapid industrialisation, this was evidently not the case as they were untrained for new jobs and thus collectivisation produced an idle workforce. Therefore it is evident that the majority of the consequences of collectivisation were negative and was thus should have been planned more thoroughly before proceeding, and the policy of collectivisation “was a crusade as much as a revolution” (Davies cited by Millar 1982 p63).
