“Collectivisation was a political success but an economic failure and a
human disaster” Assess the validity of this view.
Following the end of the NEP in 1928, collectivisation was introduced, with up to 100
households sharing livestock, land and tools on a Kolkhoz. However, for it to have been a
success it must have aided Stalin in achieving his aims of increased exports, accelerated
modernisation of Russia, increasing the spread of communism and also increasing Bolshevik
control over Russia. For collectivisation to be considered a failure or human disaster, there
must have been a considerable amount of avoidable deaths as a direct result of the policy.
Therefore, collectivisation was largely both a political success and economic failure, but a
human catastrophe.
The survival of the Stalinist regime and the revolution was ensured throughout the
extension of socialism to the countryside. By 1941, almost all agricultural land had been
collectivised with nearly 90% of households belonging to a kolkhoz. This shows the political
success of collectivisation as widespread collectivisation demonstrated the increased spread
of socialism throughout Russia. However, this was incredibly unpopular. In 1930, there were
13,574 recorded incidents of peasant unrest with 2.5 million peasants involved in uprisings
and riots. This shows that despite the communist ideology being brought to the countryside
it was not welcomed. This means that the aim of increasing the spread of communism
cannot be seen to have been fulfilled. This is because, despite the ideological success of the
introduction of collectivisation, continued collectivisation had to be enforced by the state
rather than a policy that was openly adopted by the peasantry. For this reason, Stalin
achieved only partial fulfilment of his aim of spreading communism, thereby limiting the
political success he achieved.
Although collectivisation did not completely fulfil the aim of spreading communism it
did increase Bolshevik control of Russia. The introduction of the internal passport system in
1933 allowed the Bolsheviks increased control over the lives of all Russian citizens –
especially the peasantry. This helped to fulfil the aim of increasing Bolshevik control over
Russia as it allowed direct control over the movements of people and also introduced the
ability to monitor their whereabouts. This contributed to the increased control the
Bolsheviks had as a result of collectivisation. The increased control is further demonstrated
by the literacy schemes promote don the kolkhoz. Literacy schemes enabled political
indoctrination through education and misinformation. This meant the Bolsheviks were able
to influence the beliefs and thoughts of people and thus exert control over them. Together,
the internal passport system and political indoctrination of the peasantry demonstrate the
fulfilment of Stalin’s aim of increasing Bolshevik control and therefore the political success
of collectivisation.
One economic aim of collectivisation was self-sufficiency and increased exports. In
1928 0.03 million tonnes of grain were exported, in 1935 this had increased to 1.51 million
tonnes. This is evidence for the fulfilment of the aim of increasing exports as it shows that
exports increased by 5000% therefore achieving the aim. However, this was at the expense
of self-sufficiency as grain harvests remained largely consistent (73 million tonnes in 1928
and 75 million in 1935). This meant that although exports increased, there were also
increased food shortages to meet this demand. This demonstrated only partial fulfilment of
Stalin’s aim as despite the increase in exports, there was no move towards autarky as can be
seen from the increased frequency of food shortages, and therefore, the aim cannot be
seen to have been fulfilled. This, therefore, limits the economic success of collectivisation.
Another economic aim of collectivisation was to overcome Russia’s ‘backwardness’
and accelerate modernisation. There was often a slow supply of machinery and an absence
of both horses and tractors. This meant that ploughs would often have to be pulled by hand
