How Far Do You Agree That the Collectivisation of Agriculture Made an Essential Contribution to Stalin's Transformation of the Russian Economy?
How far do you agree that the collectivisation of agriculture made an essential contribution to Stalin's transformation of the Russian economy?
To a greater extent, I do agree that collectivisation was an essential contribution to stalin’s transformation of the economy, for example, it helped increase production and with it came the increase in industrialisation. Although there were many clear failures with collectivisation, in purely economic terms, it was mainly successful. However, I also think, that to a certain extent, it was other factors such as the 3 5 year plans that helped transform the economy.
Collectivisation was the process by which Russian agriculture was reformed, small farm were merged into larger units, in hope of production becoming more efficient and increasing its output. Stalin was aware of the increasing possibility of a war with Germany and so self-efficiency in food production became more imminently important in order to survive a war against the western powers. From 1927-1929 harvests fell, simultaneously affecting the wider economy. The government needed to sell grain abroad so they could receive the foreign currency necessary for resources needed for industrialisation. Collectivisation was therefore introduced to increase efficiency and introduce mechanisation. This added urgency to a need to increase output meant that high targets were set which were met with incentives and also punishments, pushing the economy towards its maximum potential making the essential contribution to the transformation of the Russian economy.
By 1940, 99% of land was collectivised. Exports such as grain, increased from 0.3 million tons in 1928 to 1.69 million tons in 1933. This helped significantly with the economy as Russia was receiving more money from foreign countries that the government could then spend on new, modern technology to further increase production. The state were providing new machinery, such as tractors, to the collectivised farms
To a greater extent, I do agree that collectivisation was an essential contribution to stalin’s transformation of the economy, for example, it helped increase production and with it came the increase in industrialisation. Although there were many clear failures with collectivisation, in purely economic terms, it was mainly successful. However, I also think, that to a certain extent, it was other factors such as the 3 5 year plans that helped transform the economy.
Collectivisation was the process by which Russian agriculture was reformed, small farm were merged into larger units, in hope of production becoming more efficient and increasing its output. Stalin was aware of the increasing possibility of a war with Germany and so self-efficiency in food production became more imminently important in order to survive a war against the western powers. From 1927-1929 harvests fell, simultaneously affecting the wider economy. The government needed to sell grain abroad so they could receive the foreign currency necessary for resources needed for industrialisation. Collectivisation was therefore introduced to increase efficiency and introduce mechanisation. This added urgency to a need to increase output meant that high targets were set which were met with incentives and also punishments, pushing the economy towards its maximum potential making the essential contribution to the transformation of the Russian economy.
By 1940, 99% of land was collectivised. Exports such as grain, increased from 0.3 million tons in 1928 to 1.69 million tons in 1933. This helped significantly with the economy as Russia was receiving more money from foreign countries that the government could then spend on new, modern technology to further increase production. The state were providing new machinery, such as tractors, to the collectivised farms