The impact and legacy of Russian collectivisation

Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Russia was predominantly an agrarian society.

The vast majority of its population lived in rural areas and relied on agriculture for their livelihood.

Under this system, the land was owned by a small number of wealthy nobles and the church, while the majority of peasants worked as serfs, who lived in conditions of extreme poverty and deprivation.

However, the Bolshevik Revolution brought about a seismic shift in this social order.

The new communist government, led by Vladimir Lenin, made the decision to abolish private property of these rich people and, instead, redistribute land among the poorer peasantry.

This policy, known as the Land Decree, was immensely popular among the rural population and played a crucial role in increasing Bolshevik popularity.

However, it also led to a fragmentation of agricultural land into small and 'inefficient' peasant farms.

These were ill-equipped to meet the demands of a modern industrial economy.

In the years following the revolution, the Soviet Union grappled with a series of economic crises, including the devastation caused by the Civil War.

The failure of the War Communism initiative and the mixed results of the New Economic Policy (NEP) that replaced it left the country in a very weak position.

By the late 1920s, it was clear that a new approach was needed to modernise the Soviet economy and ensure its survival in a hostile international environment.

This is where the idea of collectivisation came into the picture.

Collectivisation, as a concept, is based upon the Marxist-Leninist ideology that underpinned the Soviet Union's political and economic system.

At its core, it involves the replacement of individual, privately owned farms and merging them into with larger 'collective' ones.

The goal of this system is to increase agricultural efficiency and production by pooling resources and labor.

Also, it was hoped that it would help eliminate class distinctions by abolishing private property.

In the context of the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, collectivisation was seen as a necessary step towards the creation of a pure socialist society.

According to Marxist theory, the transition from capitalism to socialism involves a significant shift from an economy based on private ownership to one based on collective ownership, called 'kolkhozes'.

The kolkhoz was the basic unit of agricultural production in the collectivised countryside.

It was a cooperative where land, machinery, and livestock were owned collectively by the members.

They were then paid in kind based on the amount of work they contributed.

In theory, this system was supposed to increase agricultural productivity by allowing for the use of modern farming techniques and machinery, which were not feasible on small peasant farms.

The implementation of collectivisation began in earnest in 1929, as part of the First Five-Year Plan, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin.

The goal was to collectivise 20% of peasant households by the end of the plan in 1933.

However, the pace of collectivisation accelerated dramatically in 1930, leading to a period known as "Dizzy with Success," during which the majority of peasant farms were collectivised.

However, the process was often done forcibly, with the state using a variety of coercive measures to compel peasants to join the kolkhozes.

These included the threat of violence, the confiscation of property, and the deportation of resistors to remote areas of the country.

A key aspect of the implementation of collectivisation was the campaign against the kulaks.

The kulaks were a class of wealthy peasants who were seen as a threat to the socialist project.

The kulaks were accused of hoarding grain and sabotaging the collectivisation process.

As a result, they were subjected to a brutal campaign of 'dekulakization', under which their property was confiscation, they were expelled from their communities, and in many cases, they were arrested and executed.

The impact of collectivisation on the Soviet Union was profound and far-reaching: affecting almost every aspect of the country.

Economically, the results of collectivisation were mixed. On the one hand, it allowed the state to extract the surplus from the agricultural sector needed to fund industrialisation.

In particular, the state's control over grain production also ensured a steady supply of food for the urban workforce.

On the other hand, collectivisation led to a significant drop in agricultural productivity in the short term.

This was caused by peasants who slaughtered livestock and destroyed crops in protest.

Socially, collectivisation had a devastating impact on the rural population. The campaign against the kulaks resulted in the displacement and death of millions of people.

Furthermore, it caused the destruction of a way of life that had existed for centuries.

However, it also led to a certain degree of social leveling, as class distinctions based on land ownership were effectively eliminated.

Perhaps most importantly, collectivisation served to consolidate Stalin's power and strengthen the role of the Communist Party.

It allowed the state to extend its control over the countryside, which had traditionally been a bastion of resistance to central authority.

It also served to eliminate potential sources of opposition, such as the Orthodox Church, which had always had significant influence in rural areas.

To gain a more nuanced understanding of the impact and legacy of collectivisation, it is helpful to examine specific case studies that highlight the regional variations and personal experiences associated with this policy.

One such case study is Ukraine, often referred to as the "breadbasket" of the Soviet Union due to its fertile soil and productive agriculture.

The process of collectivisation in Ukraine was particularly violent and coercive, met with fierce resistance from the peasantry.

The state's ruthless response, combined with the disruption of agricultural practices, led to the Holodomor, a devastating famine in 1932-33 that resulted in the death of millions of people.

The Holodomor is a tragic example of the human cost of collectivisation and remains a contentious issue in Ukrainian history and politics.

Another interesting case study is the region of Siberia, where many kulaks and other "class enemies" were deported during the dekulakization campaign.

Despite the harsh conditions and the lack of agricultural infrastructure, these deportees were expected to establish new farms and meet production quotas.

Their experiences highlight the coercive nature of collectivisation and its impact on individual lives.

On the other hand, there were also regions where collectivisation was relatively successful, at least in terms of meeting the state's economic goals.

For example, in the Central Black Earth Region, the transition to collective farming was less violent and more gradual, and the kolkhozes were able to achieve significant increases in grain production.

This case study shows that the impact of collectivisation was not uniformly negative and that there were instances where it led to improvements in agricultural efficiency.

Finally, it is worth considering the experiences of women during collectivisation.

With the shift to collective farming, women were expected to participate in agricultural work on an equal footing with men, which led to significant changes in gender roles and relations.

While this increased workload often resulted in the "double burden" of work and domestic responsibilities, it also provided women with new opportunities for social participation and economic independence.

At the time of its implementation, collectivisation was met with widespread resistance from the peasantry, who saw it as an assault on their way of life and their economic independence.

The policy was also criticised by some members of the Communist Party, who saw it as a deviation from Lenin's New Economic Policy and a return to the coercive methods of War Communism.

Among historians and scholars, the debate over collectivisation has focused on its economic effectiveness and its role in the industrialisation of the Soviet Union.

Some argue that collectivisation was a necessary step towards modernisation, allowing the state to extract the agricultural surplus needed to fund industrialisation.

Others contend that the policy was economically disastrous, leading to a decline in agricultural productivity and a severe famine.

There is also a debate over the role of Stalin in the implementation of collectivisation.

Some view him as the driving force behind the policy, pointing to his speeches and writings as evidence of his determination to collectivise at any cost.

Others argue that Stalin was more pragmatic, responding to pressures from below as well as above, and that the pace and intensity of collectivisation were often determined by local officials rather than by central directives.