What are the reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization? Was it worth it to conduct at all

Until now, historians can not come to a common opinion on collectivization during the Stalinist rule. Some believe that thanks to it, Russia was able to go through the development path in just a few years, on which other states needed decades. Others argue that the separation from the ideals of capitalism, the impossible plans and the strict policy of the authorities led to the fact that the planned rates of production and modernization did not coincide with the realistic ones, because the forcibly dekulakized people were absolutely indifferent to them.

The main reasons that motivated the authorities to choose the path of collectivization

Agricultural production in Russia significantly lagged behind all indicators from world leaders. It is clear that this also constrained the overall level of development of a huge state. If the problems of technical backwardness and the low level of agricultural production were not resolved in time, the country could remain in the 19th century in terms of its level of development, that is, lagging behind the West for a hundred years. After all, even the production of marketable grain by all indicators was not sufficiently developed.

When the question arises as to the reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization, it is worth recalling the procurement campaign of 1927-28, which, according to all characteristics, suffered a crisis, for it was precisely this reason that was the main reason for introducing the policy of mass collectivization. It is important to note the attitude of the ruling link to various "classes". According to the Stalinist group, the results of collectivization should have been very ambitious, because the peasantry was perceived only as an assistant to the working class, on which there was little use. Therefore, no one was going to regret them, the whole process had to be completed as quickly as possible, using violent methods, which many times justified themselves.

The concept of collectivization in the eyes of the authorities and the people

For power, collectivization, in short, was nothing more than the creation of a strong, strong agricultural machinery, which was able to carry out the set plans in the shortest possible way to achieve the desired level of development.

For ordinary people, collectivization was a rigid, forcibly planted idea of the ruling link, which many farm households did not like because for years the collected property, animals, stocks had to be simply placed under the control of other people, without any guarantees of return or obtaining a stable Income.

Many historians who pondered the question of what causes the transition to a policy of mass collectivization, confidently state that if the yield in 1927-28 were higher, the yield of harvest did not drop eight times, then, perhaps, violent Methods would not be used in such a rigid form.

The decision is made and must be implemented

It was at the Fifteenth Congress of the CPSU (B.) That collectivisation was proclaimed the main task. We were motivated to carry out quickly and universally its promises of benefits, tax cuts, were supposed to supply the advanced technicians with the most up-to-date equipment. And if in the beginning mass collectivization was still relatively voluntary, then in 1929 the word "violent" was added to this concept.

Objectives

In order to fully understand what are the reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization, it is worthwhile to understand the main goals that have been set.

1) Cities grew rapidly, they needed to be supplied at the expense of rural economies. But their level of development and effectiveness to achieve this goal were too low.

2) It was planned that in the first years the results of collectivization, namely, the increase in grain imports, would allow refinancing not only agriculture, but also the process of industrialization of the country.

Dekulakization. Realities

The dekulakization of individual rural farms passed with the shedding of blood and tears. People who managed to reach certain heights in the development of their own economy did not want to give up their property, animals or equipment "under the wing of the collective farms," but they did not intend to take their opinions and wishes into account. Did not help and high taxes, tight credit conditions. Anti-farm rallies, which began in the spring of 1930, sent a little pressure from the local authorities, the peasants began to leave the collective farms, but by autumn the collectivization was resumed with a new force by violent means.

Not exactly as expected, collectivization brought results. Years spent on the creation of a unified agricultural machinery, turned people into indifferent workers, the result of which was little like a progressive one. Despite the fact that the number of livestock was significantly reduced, the yield level fell, the export of bread increased and, as a result, the famine of 1932-33 came.

Now, when the answer to the question of what are the reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization is clear, the following arises: "Why did not the authorities want to see that their idea was a failure, because without incentives for economic development, it simply could not be?"