Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
How successful was collectivisation/ What was its impact? - Coggle Diagram
How successful was collectivisation/ What was its impact?
FAILURES
SOCIAL FAILURE
a resistance was created towards collectivisation as peasants refused the system => they would burn livestock and crops and thus it negativey impacted collectivisation
on top of this, those who showed resistance were labeled as kulaks and thus treated as such = dekulakisation => gulags, labor camps, death
1932-34 = famine
7 million peasants die and Ukraine is hit the hardest
one of the reasons may be due collectives being ran by party officials with little to no knowledge on how to run the farms => led to droughts and shortages
Collectivisation is done through coercion and forced however, Stalin then retuned to the "voluntary principle" and thus allowing the peasants to chose wether or not to partake in collectivisation
caused many peasants to abandon collectie farms => this shows the failure of the policy in the ability to show the peasants the benefits of working together and the socialist policies
1931 => Stalin restarts it and by the end of the year 50% of peasant households were back to being collectivised
HUMAN COST
one of the biggest problems was the clear lack of incentive to work in the collective farms => peasants rarely if ever saw profits and their work coming back to them => easily demotivating
ECONOMICALLY
due to collectivisation, agricultural production actually fell (shortages, droughts, resistance) and didnt pick up until the late 1930s
failures can be used a counterclaim for the success of the plan when arguing it as a complete success => the rebuttal would be that the failures had little effect on Stalin's image if not to only reenforce his power
SUCCESSES
POLITCAL
stalin and the party gained more control over the countryside as there were always party officials looking over the grain procurements
=> this thus increased his general power over the peasants
Stalin was able to fulfil one of his goals of moving the Soviet Union closer to socialism => would enforce his position as leader and reenforce his image as a socialist leader to other communist parties
allowed for increased industrialisation within the cities as the surplus was used as a way to fund the industrial sector & the 5YP => one of the main goals of collectivisation and thus reenforces his image
Soviet union is now an industrial nation
ECONOMICAL
made agriculture more productive and efficient => especially through the use of tractors and machinery and modern technology in genera (which had been funded by the surplus sold abroad)
Stalin now had surplus to sell abroad => which was one of Stalin's goals with the policy of collectivisation
This increased the input of foreign finance which helped grow the cities and industrialise them (cities and industry became more proficient as some peasants escaped to the cities to avoid collectivisation)
this increased their global image and power
CONCLUSION
the majority of it depends what point of view you are viewing success as. When discussing if it was a success for the country or the economy as a whole then yes it was a success as cities industrialised and agricultural became more proficient but came at an immense human cost => thus makes it less of a success when weighing the successes and the failures
now when viewing it from Stalin's perspective in relation to his goals for the agricutural policy of collectivisation then it was a great success
he gaiend more contorl over the peasabts and got rid of the kulaks throug this, citis wer enow more industrialsied which was one of his main goals, he increased his global power and selling power through the selling of surplus abroad
the policy served its purpose and succeed in all of his goals, even with the hug social cost => success for stalin and his image
had a big impact both economically and socially and politically (more the latter for Stalin)