When one looks at the history of the USSR, one of the most important aspects to look at is the massive industrialization that took place under the Soviet regime. This industrialization, like so many other things, is a complicated issue, with many arguments circling around it. The process was marked both by tremendous progress and expansion, as well as gross inefficiency and waste.
To better understand the Soviet industrialization, it is necessary for us to briefly look at the history that preceded it. When the Bolsheviks came to power, they inherited a country with economic conditions that were far from favorable. It was a country devastated by World War I as well as the civil war that followed it. For all intents and purposes, one can say that the economy of the country was in ruins, and drastic steps were necessary in order to feed the hungry population, and for the country to survive.
To answer this problem, a New Economic Policy (NEP) was implemented. In essence, this policy went away from communist ideology to a large degree. It allowed farmers to go out and sell what they have produced, and brought in many elements of the free market. At the same time, the Soviet regime restored the industry which existed but was devastated by war.
To a large degree, this policy was successful. By 1920s, the USSR managed to reach industrial production levels of roughly 1913. (Suny 233) Furthermore, the population was no longer starving, and living conditions improved throughout the country. However, NEP also brought in several problems. One of them, in the eyes of the Soviet leadership, was that it naturally brought polarization into society, producing some rich and some poor peasants, whereas ideologically there were supposed to be no classes in the new society (Suny 171)
A more serious problem, however, was the fact that rapid industrial advance was incompatible with NEP. It was necessary to shift country’s resources from agriculture towards the production of heavy industry. Instead of producing consumption goods, it was necessary to produce capital goods. (Suny 234)
The peasants, however, had little incentive to sell their product, since there were few things of use that they could get in return (since the economy concentrated on production of capital goods instead of consumption goods). This, naturally, brought tension between the city which had to be fed, and the peasants who would not give up or sell their product, unless compelled to do so by the state.
Russia's industries were beginning to develop and the number of people living in towns was increasing. These people were the urban working class of Russia and they were not as eager to accept the poor wages and conditions as the peasants were.
As part of War Communism meant that industries were nationalised meaning that all industry was n...
Stalin had an ingenious plan to help his country’s economy get back on track. He called this plan the Five Year Plan which consisted of four parts. First was a plan to increase industrial output in five years because Russia was far behind the Great Powers of Europe. Second was the end of NEP, New Economic Plan, in Russia. NEP was another way of saying collectivization. Third was more focused to the increase of steel production, which they were able to do by five hundred percent. And lastly was his commitment of investing one-third of the government’s income to industry.
The globalization of industrialization began in Britain, spread throughout continental Western Europe, and then found it’s way into Russia and the United States only to provoke industrialization in Latin America. Thus, agricultural innovations such as selective breeding and lighter plows gave Britain an advantage in industrialization which later indirectly influenced the process of industrialization in Russia and Latin America. As a result of Russia’s industrialization, a middle class of businessmen and professionals was formed because they were required to work the new centers of industrial development. In addition, this growing middle class was created subsequent to the development of factories and heavy industry; steel production was rapidly accelerating to contest the threat of European modern industry and major industries were formed in coal, textiles, and oil. Although Europe was still prominent in its industrial superiority, this industrial competition led to Russia ranking fourth in the world in its steel manufacturing. Thus, as a response to industrialization, Russia entered tr...
boosted the USSR’s economy. Therefore Stalin had created a country which seemed corrupt at the time, but later on it improved by the hard work Stalin had forced upon them.
During the twentieth century, China developed the strongest economy throughout the world. The mass population of the Chinese people helped in the production in goods which in tailed helped China’s economy grow. Russia was not far behind China after the Industrial revolution, Russia needed a plan if they were going to catch up to China. China was relying on the exporting of goods and long term goals for profit. Russia focused on Five-Year Plans, “the form of economy worked for communism, consistently appealing to the intellectuals of developing countries in Asia” (Paul Craig Roberts 2). The Industrial Revolution had helped the growth of both China and Russia’s economy throughout the Twentieth
In fact, around 1975, the Soviet Union began to enter a period of economic stagnation because of long-playing huge imbalance between light industry and heavy industry even if the crisis of oil in 1973 helped Soviet Union increase the proportion of light industry by imports. Additionally, by later 1980s, the price of petroleum declined and the demand of grains increased so that the Soviet Union had to borrow money from Western banks to purchase the grains to distribute to people for maintaining the economy. Besides, during the military race, although Soviet Union’s military budget was 1/3 of that of the United State, it still had achieved parity with the United States in military power as at least 50 percent of the industrial output of the Soviet Union was going to the military according to Western intelligence sources and the government cut down the the expense of investment in the rest of the economy. Meanwhile, owing to the Stalinist system, people in Soviet lack the incentives for productivity. Consequently, insurmountable crisis in agriculture and other light industry issues appeared, which caused a visible decline in the rate of growth and then its complete stagnation. Thus, Soviet Union had malformed economic system to curb the development of Soviet Union, which at last led to the collapse of the
This investigation examines the extent to which the changes Stalin’s First Five-Year Plan had lead to the development of a greater industrial society. After the Russian Revolution and Civil War, Stalin had hoped to continue the Soviet Union’s development by expanding its economy. To assess the degree to which the people and economy of Russia had improved as an affect of the First Five-Year Plan, the results of the plan will be given, including the effects of the plan on the different industries in Russia. The details of why Stalin had chosen to introduce the First Five-Year Plan will also be observed.
During the years 1930 the the Soviet people was brutalized, and these are some examples that Stalin used against them. Stalin had three objectives, which were: to build a power industrial base, to collectivize agriculture, and to impose the nation complete conformity. Also, he believed that the system need sacrifices and sacrificial victims for the good of the cause and happiness of future generations. Stalin, to begin the industrialization, needed to construct a base virtually from scratch, but he need to be in the same level of this capitalist rivals. Therefore, without regardless of human cost, emphasized the entire the national economy to heavy machinery and capital goods. Stalin implemented many ratification for to have the control of
Another goal of his new policy was to erase all capitalistic elements previously imposed by Lenin within Russia. Russian peasants just won their land from the nobles after the revolution, and now Stalin was taking it all back. Peasants were not happy with this. Many began to protest by killing livestock and burning fields. Stalin soon began killing many of these protestors or sending them to gulags. Eventually all farms became governmental property and soon giant collectivized farms were established. By the end of the 1930’s wheat production had risen exponentially. In the end, many peasants were able to leave the countryside and work in factories. Russia was also able to export much of its grain in order to fund further industrialization. But again, the human cost of this policy was monumental. Many people starved because of the protesting and many also were murdered by the government in order to force others to
This is a very liberalist view, which I agree with to a certain extent, as it tends to focus on the lack of freedom the soviet citizens had rather than Stalin’s successes, despite the argument that the industrialisation was a turning point for Russia. Stalin was desperate to become stronger than other countries, and this was shown in a speech he made in 1931; ‘the tempo must not be reduced. To slacken the pace would mean to lag behind, and those who lag behind are beaten. We do not want to be beaten. We are fifty to a hundred years behind the advanced countries... Either we do it [modernise] or they crush us’ . Stalin was set on modernising the Soviet Industry as quickly as possible, and a poster was published in 1931 in the Soviet Union with the caption ‘we smite the lazy workers’ . This slogan was kept to, as good workers who kept up their production rates received higher salaries than those who didn’t. The 5-year plans had a dramatic effect on the Soviet Union, and it became the second largest industrial power in just 10
Stalin wanted Russia to become a great industrialized nation and pushed through the Five Year Plan, calling for rapid industrialization and an increase in factory...
...change of industrial leadership crippled Russia's mechanization efforts and it is still argued today if the effects are still felt. By removing these people from the Soviet society both the biologist theories of Nature verses Nurture were challenged at best and destroyed at worst. For the argument of nature being the greatest influence on learning ability most of the intellectuals and brightest leaders were removed from the gene pool. In contrast to Nurture these people could not influence society any longer. Through these changes in society Stalin has forever made his mark. His pollicies effected every area in Russian culture.
The Soviet Union, which was once a world superpower in the 19th century saw itself in chaos going into the 20th century. These chaoses were marked by the new ideas brought in by the new leaders who had emerged eventually into power. Almost every aspect of the Soviet Union was crumbling at this period both politically and socially, as well as the economy. There were underlying reasons for the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and eventually Eastern Europe. The economy is the most significant aspect of every government. The soviet economy was highly centralized with a “command economy” (p.1. fsmitha.com), which had been broken down due to its complexity and centrally controlled with corruption involved in it. A strong government needs a strong economy to maintain its power and influence, but in this case the economic planning of the Soviet Union was just not working, which had an influence in other communist nations in Eastern Europe as they declined to collapse.
The New Economic Policy instituted by Vladimir Lenin in 1922 was seen as a necessary evil in order to maintain power in the Soviet Union. While most historians agree with Lenin’s assessment and believe that without the change the entire Soviet economy would have collapsed there is a wide range of thoughts on the true effectiveness of the NEP. This paper will look at the progression of the NEP and the differing views Bolshevik leaders had on it as well as the perceived effectiveness of the limited free market policies adopted by these socialist leaders. It will also try to determine if NEP could have remained a viable option for the economy long term.