History Performance Task 2
Stalin’s policies of industrialization were more successful than his policies of
collectivization. Discuss.
Russia was deeply scarred by the impacts of World War I, where production from
heavy industry stooped dangerously low, and faced increasing pressure to provide
for its soaring demands of food to feed its growing population and provide a surplus
for export. To overcome these, Stalin plunged the country into a series of dramatic
changes through his policies of industrialization and collectivization.
Stalin’s policy of industrialization was more successful than collectivization as it had
achieved its aims more smoothly and efficiently, and had a more positive impact on
the civilians.
Goals were set for the policies of industrialization and collectivization. In
industrialization, Stalin’s aim of making Russia an industrial superpower was met
within the short space of ten years, while the goals set for collectivization were
achieved with slow progress.
The achievements for industrialization are showcased in a series of Five-Year Plans;
the first two (1928-1932, 1932-1937) being so successful that order of completion
shifted up to four years instead of five. The rate of production increase during the first
Five-Year Plan was a substantial 20%, with emphasis on energy and construction
materials like coal, oil, steel, iron, cement and electricity. Statistics revealed that
machinery output increased four times, oil production doubled, and final electrical
output was 250% of the figure in 1928. This continued in the second Plan (19321937) with a 14% production increase, and emphasis on newer metallurgical
resources like lead, zinc, nickel and tin. Though official Soviet statistics proved to
have exaggerations, the Plans were a remarkable success. By 1940, Russia had
become an “industrial superpower”, as it overtook Britain in iron and steel production
and was even within reach of Germany.
In contrast, Stalin’s aim to increase the amount of crops by forming collective farms
made slow progress, as it encountered strong public resistance. Communist officials
had to force unwilling farmers to hand over their crops, who had seen how
collectivization during the Civil War (1917–1923) led to food shortages. The officials
searched for food, confiscating any crops they found, which led to greater outbursts
and assassinations of officials. In 1928, 1400 of such assassinations were reported.
Thus, there was a decrease in harvested crops from 1928 to 1935, as agricultural
output of cattle dropped from 26 million to 22.6 million while grain harvest decreased
from 73.3 to 67.6 million tons. Kulaks were blamed for this initial failure and
eliminated. Those who still preferred destroying their crops, rather than handing them
to the government were killed. Hence, with little cooperation from the farmers, there
was slow progress in achieving the Collectivisation aims.
With industrialization, almost all heavy industries enjoyed substantial increases in
production. The Five-Year Plans achieved their primary aims of being an industrial
superpower and to withstand conflict from a major capitalist state. Meanwhile,
collectivization faced countless problems, making slow progress to attain its goal of
securing a cheap and regular supply of crops. Thus, in terms of the efficiency in
achieving the goals for both policies, industrialization was more successful.
Industrialization was more successful than collectivization as it gave people a better
life. Weighing the social implications versus the benefits of each policy, we can justify
our claims.
Amanda Teo (3SE), Samantha Lau (3SY)
History Performance Task 2
The success of industrialization came at a huge cost. Life was grim for most Russian
workers with enormous demands placed on them. Millions lived in primitive housing
conditions while working on the vast projects in the interior of Russia and the workers
endured simultaneous pay-cuts and production speed-ups in order to finance Stalin’s
ambitious projects without foreign investments. Also, the state tightened control on
the workers. Workers were ruthlessly disciplined: absenteeism was treated harshly
unless a doctor’s certificate was produced; doctors who gave certificates too easily
faced prosecution themselves. Lastly, there was a severe shortage of consumer
goods due to concentration on heavy industries. These shortages led to high prices,
resulting in a 50% drop in actual value of the workers’ salaries as they could only buy
less with the same amount of money.
Regardless, the situation improved after 1935 as benefits like free medical care and
education became available. New colleges, schools and universities were built, and
illiteracy in Russia declined from 50% in 1924 to 19% in 1939. Soon, Russian
workers were able to obtain well-paid, high-skilled jobs. The state also provided more
facilities for leisure: by the end of the 1930s, close to 30 000 cinemas were built,
sports facilities and public gardens and cultural parks.
While Collectivization secured 90% of Soviet agriculture collectivized by 1936, it
came at an appalling human cost. Many workers working for factories were forced as
their crops were snatched from them for collectivisation. Farmers burnt their crops as
a sign of rebellion. Meanwhile, there was much civil unrest in Russia while people
lived in fear and distrust. Many were strongly against the policy, and rioted and
engaged in armed resistance, while kulaks were eliminated. This scared the middle
peasants into the collectives and left them with no alternative form of livelihood.
Uncooperative peasants were sent to exile in labour camps or shot. In addition, the
living conditions of the people deteriorated sharply. They became steeped in poverty
and suffered from famine in 1932-1933. The livestock levels fell to pre-World War I
standards, and the country’s recovery took 5 years, leaving behind 10 million dead.
Although the policy of industrialization had major drawbacks, it was beneficial to the
civilians in the long-term as living standards gradually improved. Meanwhile,
collectivization resulted in deaths due to famines and had little benefit for the people.
It managed to increase Russia’s crop yield and productivity of goods, but this cannot
be compared to the significant social benefits created from industrialization.
However, we must acknowledge that the success of industrialization came with some
success on the part of collectivization. Through collective farms, the increase in
grain’s production and export to the cities contributed to the success of the
industrialization process, because “The more food that could be grown the better as
the cities and factories could suitably be fed.”1 In addition, by mechanizing the farms,
collectivization freed farmers from the countryside to work in factories in the cities.
Also, with the profits the State received for grain exportations, they were able to bring
in technology and equipments for the new industries and factories. Hence,
collectivization helped Russia rapidly carry out industrialization by bringing in more
workers and money to finance the projects. In this way, industrialization could be
seen as riding on collectivization, and we cannot discount the fact that in the long-
The Collectivization of Agriculture in Russia, “Agricultural changes under Stalin from 1928 to
1935”, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/collectivisation.htm
1
Amanda Teo (3SE), Samantha Lau (3SY)
History Performance Task 2
term, collectivization propelled Russia from a backward agricultural society to a
modernised industrial society.
Indeed, industrialization left a more positive mark on the country and people as
compared to collectivization. Its aims were achieved smoothly, as people were more
cooperative, whereas people rebelled strongly to collectivization, resulting in severe
consequences. Industrialization also brought more benefits to civilians and improved
their standards of living, while the costs of collectivization evidently outweighed its
benefits. Hence, we conclude that industrialization was more successful than
collectivization. Nonetheless, we must recognize that the success of industrialization
could not have been possible without some measure of success on the front of
collectivization.
(1186 words)
Amanda Teo (3SE), Samantha Lau (3SY)
History Performance Task 2
Bibliography
1. Alfred Jr. Evans, B. (1993) Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an
Ideology. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers p.36-38
2. Arasumani, R. and Yeo, Llyod. (2007) Crisis and Conflict. Singapore:
Marshall Cavendish Education. Pp 68-77
3. Author cannot be traced (1932). “Decree of the Central Executive Committee
and Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, "On Firing for Unexcused
Absenteeism,"” In Pravda, 15 Nov 1932, p.1
4. Collectivisation of Agriculture in Russia,
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/collectivistion.htm, (accessed on 8th May
2009)
5. Morris, T.A. (1992) European History 1848-1945 Collins Educational:
London, Chapter 13, pg 194-207
6. Stalin’s Increase in Industrialization,
http://www.milford.k12.il.us/MHSsite/students/studentproj/animal/historicaleve
nts/industri.htm, (accessed 10th May 2009)
7. Stalin’s Russia, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0112205/stalinsrussia.html,
(accessed 9th May 2009)
8. The National Archives Learning Curve, Heroes and Villains,
http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/heroesvillains/g4/cs3/, (accessed 9th May
2009)
9. "Various Marxist and Utopian Socialists: Stalin, Khrushchev and After."
Monarch Notes. 1963. Electric Library, http://www.elibrary.com, (accessed
10th May 2009)
Amanda Teo (3SE), Samantha Lau (3SY)