Agricultural collectivisation under Stalin

Stalin’s reasons for collectivisation

Stalin recognised his plans required a food surplus to achieve. Agriculture had remained unchanged since NEP as the government had retreated from the direct involvement during war communism. The Mir councils still operated farms on an individual basis but this was going to be insufficient for what Stalin had in mind.

Economic reasons for collectivisation

Peasants in Russia owned a series of very small plots that were hand farmed. In this plan larger group owned units could be created introducing economies of scale and the addition of machinery would be more useful if hedgerows and fences were removed so it could operate on a larger scale. This would also reduce the number of agricultural workers and free more up to go into urban employment.

Political reasons for collectivisation

The party had become resented by the peasantry after gassing and slaughtering those involved in the Tambov uprising. NEP had pacified the peasants but gave them the chance to make money which was not favoured by Stalin. This emerging class of ‘Kulaks’ was also seen to be hoarding food by Stalin so he could destroy them and bring in collectivisation in one go.

The progress of collectivisation

After removing the pro-peasant alliance right nothing stood in the way of Stalin’s policies. In December 1927 voluntary collectivisation began but soon forced requisition returned as food shortages got worse. Then party official began going village to village lecturing on the benefits of collectives to get people to join Kolkhoz collectives. The promise of increased mechanisation was a big driver as MTS stations would provide state owned machinery. Another method was to label all those who did not join as kulaks as well. There was a good number of deniers in the richer areas like Ukraine. In 1930 Stalin published ‘dizzy with success’ which blamed local officials for the excesses of the collectivisation campaign but insisted on it’s continuation. By 1937 93% of peasants were in collectives.

Dekulakisation

Stalin had created Kulaks as an enemy class to continue the class struggle. At first they were any peasant that owned land or a few more animals no matter how small this extra was but it was expanded to anyone refusing to enter a collective such as Gorbachev’s grandad. Dekulakisation squads well versed in class struggles would be sent to forcibly organise collectives. The OGPU would arrest and execute those who still refused and in some cases th red army would bomb entire villages that did not comply. Kulaks made up the majority of the gulag labour force by the 40’s. Many Kulaks would slaughter their animals and burn their crops to stop them going into Soviet hands.

The results of collectivisation

Kulaks were the most productive peasants but were now removed and the machinery attempted to replace them would not arrive in some areas until the mid to late 30’s. The animals killed and crops burned were also a problem leading to substandard harvests. The main issue was actually government requisition to support urban development. A passport system was introduced that meant peasants couldn’t leave their collectives effectively reverting the country to serfdom. The death of animals and lack of tractors meant people had to carry ploughs and harvests. Party schemes including growing rubber only made famine worse. The horrendous economic and social impact could show Stalin’s only real goal was to create political control over the peasantry as that is the only sector this plan succeeded in.

Holodomor

Stalin successfully ‘liquidated’ kulaks in the USSR a group made up of 15 million people. This was much worse in Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalism had scared Stalin and it is possible the focused requisitioning in this area was a purposeful genocide of Ukrainians. The Kazakhs were also hit hard. They were a nomadic people now locked into their collectives they could not live as they knew how to and their sheep flocks were effectively wiped out. A typhus epidemic then wiped out 40% of the population. It is estimated the death toll of this policy stands between 5-10 million almost all of whom lived in rural areas.