Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How accurate is it to say that the most important result of collectivisation of agriculture was the imposed communist control of the countryside in the years 1928-41? Collectivisation of agriculture had many positive and negative consequences, such as social consequences and political consequences. However, from a Stalinist point of view, the most important consequence of collectivisation of agriculture was the imposed communist control of the countryside due to the fact that it set the groundwork for industrialisation in the USSR that Stalin was aiming for. Stalin?s imposed communist control of the countryside was the most important result of collectivisation of agriculture because Stalin got what he aimed to achieve, an industrial society with a socialist society conforming to Marxist theories. An example of this would be a development of machinery, with the establishment of 2,500 machine and tractor stations. Furthermore, grain requisitioning in order to priorities the feeding of cities and the working class (which were an important factor of Stalin?s plan to industrialise Russia) lead to trade which brought Russia and Stalin money that assisted in funding for Stalin?s policy for industrialisation. ...read more.

Middle

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). ...read more.

Conclusion

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. ...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.