Get your original paper written from scratch starting at just $10 per page with a plagiarism report and free revisions included!
As the first five years plan was taken into practice, The USSR was desperate for grains. With food being vital for Industrialisation of the USSR, the NEP policy wasn’t efficient enough as 20 million tones of grains short. With demand from all direction along with many other factors, Stalin switched his agricultural policy from NEP, to left wing desperate measures of collectivisation in 1929, the policy of enforcing grain collection he once stood against. With the NEP ultimately being against the principle of communism, it favoured class enemies such as the Kulaks and private businesses. Agriculture of the USSR was at that time backward in inefficient, this had been a problem since the time of the Tsar. Farms were small and unproductive, with the purpose only to supply food for a single farmer family. Method of farming was outdated and greatly wasting the potential of the farmland.
With most of Russian land cold and infertile, farmlands were scarce limiting the possibility of expanding the farmland. State and collective farms have to be claimed from the original farmland. The five year plan being at brink of success, famine for the working class will put an end to the development of the USSR. With priority to the Industrial workers who are the party main supporters. Resources will have to be sacrificed from the agricultural area and concentrated on the workers for the better good of the country and its economy. This would also help them in the long run as Stalin expect a portion of peasants to migrate to towns to fill up town workers post.
With this in minds, foreign currency is vital for the import of foreign machinery and enterprise. To achieve impressive industrial progress with no real agricultural Surplus, crops have to be taken to sell in foreign market, despite the national famine. With the development of machinery and technology, Stalin expects that it will benefit agriculture method wise. With the belief in the economics of scales, the collective farms will benefit from technological improvements. Though Stalin originally opposes collectivisation, switching his standing back to it on the other hand bought him good rather than bad.
He successfully eliminated his right wing communist rivals, stretching his influence over the party. Fewer would dare to oppose him, let alone stay neutral. With agriculture policy moved further left, collectivisation will meet his communist ideological theory. In conclusion, though it can be said that collectivisation is essential for industrialisation of the economy, Stalin could apply collectivisation for other reasons such as for his own ideology or for his personal power expansion amongst the communist Bolshevik party. However, the results prove that it brought good to the overall USSR economy via industrialisation.
The aim of our service is to provide you with top-class essay help when you ask us to write my paper; we do not collect or share any of your personal data. We use the email you provide us to send you drafts, final papers, and the occasional promotion and discount code, but that’s it!Order Now