How accurate is it to say that the most important result of

collectivisation of agriculture was that it imposed communist control

in the countryside?
Collectivisation, which began in 1928, was in response to the Grain Procurement
crisis caused by NEP and completely changed Soviet agriculture to a new state
controlled system. Generally, it is not accurate to say that the most important
result of collectivisation was communist control of the countryside, because
there were other very important results such as the increase in grain supply for
towns and cities, movement of peasants to cities, and the peasant way of life
being effectively transformed.
It can be argued that the most important result of collectivisation was that it
imposed communist control in the countryside by eliminating the remaining
forms of capitalism that existed due the NEP. This is because Stalin used the
policy to target the better off peasants; the Kulaks, who were seen as capitalist in
nature and blamed for the wide peasant opposition to collectivisation as well as
holding the revolution to ransom during the Grain procurement crisis in 1928,
and so were destroyed as a class to prevent any further unrest. This is shown by
the fact that over 6 million Kulaks were killed or deported to Gulag labour camps
in Siberia and private farming was replaced with collective farming in Kolkhozes
(collective farms). Another reason why the imposed communist control in the
countryside was the most important result was because it led to an ideological
campaign against the Orthodox church, which was seen as a symbol of the old
tsarist regime and so had to be destroyed in order to fully establish communist
control, as shown by the fact that the state cut financial support to churches as
well as the League of Militant Godless (and organisation aimed at spreading
atheism) reducing the number of religious communities from 50,000 to 30,000.
This further indicates that the imposition of communist control in the countryside
was the most important result, as it finally brought socialism ideology to the
peasants and liquidated any forms of inequality and capitalism by removing the
Kulaks.

However, it can be argued that the increase of grain supply to the towns and
cities was the most important result of collectivisation. This is because grain
supply had been seriously reduced during the Grain procurement crisis in 1928
which led to 14% less state procurements. Therefore, collectivisation of
agriculture by Stalin meant that cities now had a stable and increased supply of
grain, which was important due to the rapid industrialisation from the five year
plans, so the huge labour force needed this grain. This is indicated by the fact
that grain procurement increased from 11 million tonnes in 1928 to 28 million in
1935, showing that collectivisation greatly increased the grain supply from what
it was under NEP (New Economic policy). Also, the increased grain supply was
the most important result because it meant more grain could be exported to buy
machinery abroad for rapid industrialisation, as shown by grain exports
increasing by 400% during collectivisation. Therefore, this rapidly increased
capital for purchasing, reinforcing the fact that it is not accurate to say that
communist control of the countryside was the most important result of
collectivisation, since increasing grain supply was also a crucial result. It could be

argued that this was the main result to a lesser extent because increasing the
grain supply would not have stopped the opposition in the countryside which
imposing communist control did, as the peasants were seen as a large threat to
the Soviet government due to their conservative and backwards thinking that
could turn to major unrest as shown during the Russian civil war by the Green
peasant armies.
Therefore, it can also be argued that the mass migration of peasants to the
towns and cities by urbanisation was the most important result of
collectivisation. This is because the USSR needed to be a strong socialist state in
order to reach true communism and fulfil the policy of Socialism in one country,
so a large amount of workers was needed in order to rapidly industrialise and
fully establish the dictatorship of the Proletariat, which emphasised that the
workers were in control. This is indicated by the fact that during the early 1930s,
the urban population was increasing at an astounding 50,000 people a week and
so by 1939, 50% of the population were working class compared to the just 18%
in 1928, clearly showing that this huge movement of peasants to the urban areas
was a very important result that Stalin particular wanted, due to his other policy
industrial policy of the five year plans which needed the immense amount of
labour in order to accomplish it and so catch up with the western economies in
order to prevent being crushed by the capitalist nations. Although, this may be
the main result to a lesser extent because without the increase of grain supply,
this huge amount of new workers would not have properly been supported as
they would not a sufficient food, and so most likely remain in countryside which
would also have severely affected the output of goods in the five year plans.
Thus, it can be argued that it was in fact the complete change of the peasant
way of life that was the most important result of collectivisation. This is because
collectivisation inflicted massive hardship onto the peasants , and transformed
the peasant quite backwards farming methods of mainly strip farming into new
state owned Kolkhozes (collective farms), which is indicated by the fact that by
1937, around 97% of farms were collectivised. Collectivisation also had
devastating consequences for the peasants, with partly man made famines in
the early 1930s from the very high state procurements as well as large 20
million drop in cattle numbers by peasants stopping livestock entering state
hands. This caused the deaths of over 9 million from starvation, with Ukraine
being particularly affected, clearly showing how collectivisation completely
changed the peasant way of life as whole villages were scarred by the famines
due the huge numbers of dead and so this completely broke the Smyckha
(alliance) with the peasants. The peasants traditional lifestyle had been
drastically changed, and so this further indicates that the main result of
collectivisation was the complete change in the peasant way of life. This may
actually be the main result the a lesser extent because the complete change in
peasant life was, in the eyes of the Soviet government, a minor result when
compared to the need to get more peasants into the urban areas for rapid
industrialisation by the Five year plans, since Stalin had already warned that this
industrialisation was needed to prevent the USSR being crushed by other
nations.
In conclusion, it is only accurate to a small extent to say that the most important
result of collectivisation was that it imposed Soviet control in the countryside,
since results such as the mass movement of peasants to the urban areas was

much more important, with the urban population increasing by around 15 million
people in just 2 years from 1930 to 1932. This is because it provided the labour
needed to carry out the rapid industrialisation policy of the Five year plans and
so without this new influx of workers due to collectivisation, the plans would have
been less successful in developing the economy and so the USSR could have
been crushed by Germany when it invaded in 1941 due to the backwards
economy. Therefore, this shows that it is not accurate to a large extent to say
that imposing communist control in the countryside was the main result of
collectivisation, since the policy was mainly linked to the need for rapid
industrialisation, which was vital.