Stalin’s Dictatorship (Economic Impact)

Impact of Stalin’s Rule

Economic Impact

• Stalin was convinced that the only way to develop the Soviet Union into a great industrial nation was to expand and modernise its industries rapidly. Agricultural production also needed to increase – to be able to feed the people as well as to produce a surplus to sell abroad for capital to build the new industries.
• All these were possible only if the Soviet Union had a planned economy, in which the government decided what should be produced and in what quantities. Thus, in 1928, Stalin launched the First Five-Year Plan (Oct. 1928 – Dec. 1932). The other 2 Five-Year-Plans was launched in 1932 and 1937.
• The organisation in charge was the State Planning Commission, known from its initials as GOSPLAN, formed in 1921. It set targets for industrial production, power supply and transport and these had the force of law.

1. Collectivisation

Stalin sought to merge small individual farms into larger collective farms, or kolkhozy. The quantities of crops that farmers were to produce, as well as their working hours and wages were fixed by the state.

Aims

• Stalin hoped Russian agriculture could help the industrial sector. Firstly, he hoped for plenty of cheap food, so that it would be possible to pay factory workers low wages and keep down production costs.
• Secondly, farming was to be mechanised, so that fewer people would be needed to look after the land and so some of them would be able to go and work in the new factories.
• Thirdly, the government meant to provide funds for industrialisation through export of crops to other countries.

Results

• Collectivisation brought about mixed results because the overall development of the Soviet agricultural sector was severely hampered.

Negative Results

• Collectivisation proved to be harmful to farming in the short term period, & it was a disaster in human terms.
• The government took away from the peasants more grain than ever to feed the towns and to sell in exchange for foreign currencies.
• Shock workers, who were made to be model urban workers and farmers, were used to force peasants to join collective farms and remove the class of prosperous peasants (kulaks) because, he claimed, they were standing in the way of progress and were the enemies of Communism.
• Farmers who produced low quantities or were absent from work were punished as local officials insisted on meeting the required quotas.
• Many farmers killed their own animals, burnt or hid their grain & produce to prevent them from being taken.
• Newly collectivised farmers purposely produced only enough for their own needs.
• The government’s revenge was terrible. Millions of kulaks were killed or deported to labour camps.
• Grain harvest dropped dramatically between 1931 and 1934.
• Loss of animal population (cattle, pigs and sheep) was not recovered until after World War II in 1945.
• Bad harvest also contributed to the Great Famine of 1932-1933, which led to the deaths of millions of farmers
• Thus, collectivisation had not benefited the Soviet Union in terms of increase in productivity in the short term as well as the impact on the livelihood of the farmers due to the lack of food available for the farmers, and the lack of support by farmers for the policy.

Positive Results

• It was in the 1950s that Soviet agricultural production regained levels it had achieved in 1928. However, Stalin continued to view the policy as a great success, and publicised it as such.
• The state managed to collect the grain, to feed the industrial towns & export them to buy industrial equipment.
• Collectivisation made it easier to introduce modern farming methods, such as tractors and combine harvesters. A large farm is also more efficient so the same land should have produced more food.
• Manpower for new factories was found as peasants left the countryside.
• The state provided health care, education, homes, fuel and clothing for the collective workers; many peasants were better off in this way than they had been before.
• Thus, Stalin’s policy of collectivisation in the long term had benefited the country in terms of increase in productivity as well as provision of certain social services for the citizens.

2. Industrialisation

Aims

• As Stalin’s main concern was to develop Russia’s industry, the First Plan concentrated on heavy industry – the output of coal, iron, steel, oil, etc. was to triple, electricity production was to increase 6-fold.
• The Second and Third Plans placed greater emphasis on defence and transport.
• The factories in the cities would produce equipment for the mechanisation of farming, such as tractors. With such equipment, fewer farmworkers would be needed and could go into the cities to be factory workers.
• More grain and other crops could also be produced. In turn, these larger, more efficient and mechanised farms owned by the state would then be able to produce more food to supply the cities and factories.

Positive Results

• Despite the Great Famine and other shortcomings, the Five-Year Plans were generally seen as a success.
• Even though the targets set by Stalin were often not met, it nevertheless helped to propel the Soviet Union forward to become an industrial base for powerful arms industry by 1941.
• As a result of the Plans, hundreds of new factories were built, new industrial towns sprang up and within ten years, the USSR had become a key industrial power.
• In the long term, the Plans made the USSR a more industrialised state with much better communications. This made it easier for other industries to develop later on.
• Because industry was growing so fast and so many roads, canals and railways were being built, there were jobs for virtually everyone in the USSR.
• Thus, Stalin’s rule had in the long term benefited the Soviet Union in terms of the rise of USSR as an industrial power as a result of his industrialisation programme and the development of key infrastructure necessary for Russia to become a formidable power against Germany later in the Second World War.

Negative Results

• However, there was little growth in consumer industries such as house-building, fertilisers & woollen textiles.
• The Five-Year Plans were also marked by poor coordination and planning. Some parts of the economy faced underproduction because factories were held up by shortages of materials. Other factories overproduced in their attempts to exceed the targets, thus resulting in a great deal of wastage.
• The ridiculously high targets for industrial production placed unnecessary pressure on the workers & caused slipshod work and manufacturing of poor-quality products as a result of their need to meet production figures.
• The results from the Second and Third Five-Year Plans show a declining rate of growth as the emphasis was placed on taking stock of production and putting in place greater planning and coordination.
• Thus, Stalin’s dictatorship had not resulted in higher standard of living for the citizens due to the lack of consumer goods for the people and it had also not resulted in the production of industrial goods that could help much in the growth of Soviet Union due to the poor quality of the goods.
• After 1937, USSR generally witnessed an economic slowdown, & industries such as oil & steel stopped growing.