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

How accurate is it to say that the most important result of the collectivisation of agriculture was the imposed communist control of the countryside in the years 1928-41?

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.

The above preview is unformatted text

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.

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 AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Assess the economic, social and political consequences of the collectivisation of Russian agriculture in ...

    and therefore scapegoated them as causing all the problems of the Soviet Union (Marples 1984 p567). Stalin had hoped the consequence of forming collective farms would increase the economic power of the country, and had planned for the larger farm units to make the use of machinery more viable and cost-effective.

  2. "Mussolini was an all powerful dictator" - How accurate is this statement?

    However this was not enough and in 1927 Mussolini set up the OVRA which was a 50, 00 strong personal militia paid for by government funds and used to intimidate Mussolini's political opponents. They were independent of the police and loyal and Mussolini although by 1940 they had arrested only

  1. How far do you agree Communist ideology influenced Stalin's decision to implement Collectivisation in ...

    However Marxist historians support the view that Stalin was a dedicated Communist and used Collectivisation to feed the revolution and fulfil the Communist dream. "Stalin was a hard man, but one who represented the views of many other people, and who forced through progressive economic and social changes."4 The 'view

  2. The Holocaust was the result of Hitlers long held grand design to pursue a ...

    to exterminate the Jewish people The source undermines Hitler as the driving force, and enhances the significance of the role of the polycratic state simply by Hitler?s absence! The competitive nature of Hitler?s subordinates within this polycratic state is evident within this source, each power vying for the support and approval of their policies by Hitler.

  1. A Stalinist but not a Marxist country. How accurate is this judgement of the ...

    This includes the social policies introduced by Stalin which intended to promote Marxist ideology. One of the key features of the social policy which helped strengthen Marxist ideology was the education system and Communist Youth Organization such as Soviet pioneers and Komsomol.

  2. The Impact of Stalins Leadership in the USSR, 1924 1941. Extensive notes

    When women?s sections of the party were set up, it was not for them to be involved in policy making, it was simply for them to explain policy to other women. (Zhenotdel was the women?s section of the central committee was not popular and closed in 1930).

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