Until now, historians cannot agree on collectivization during the Stalinist period. Some believe that thanks to it, Russia was able, in just a few years, to follow the development path that other states took decades to complete. Others argue that separation from the ideals of capitalism, impossible plans and a tough policy of the authorities led to the fact that the planned pace of production and modernization did not coincide with the feasible, because the forcibly dispossessed people were absolutely indifferent to them.
The main reasons that motivated the authorities to choose the path of collectivization
Agricultural production in Russia lagged significantly behind the world leaders in all respects. It is clear that this also restrained the general level of development of a huge state. If the problems of technical backwardness, the low level of marketability of agricultural production had not been resolved in time, the country could have remained in the 19th century in terms of its development, that is, a hundred years behind the West. Indeed, even the production of marketable grain in all respects was not sufficiently developed.
When the question arises of what are the reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization, it is worth recalling the procurement campaign of 1927-28, which in all respects suffered a crisis, because it became the main reason for introducing a policy of mass collectivization. It is important to note the attitude of the ruling link to various kinds of “classes”. According to the Stalinist group, the results of collectivization should have been very large-scale, because the peasantry was perceived only as an assistant to the working class, which was of little use. Therefore, no one was going to feel sorry for them, the whole process had to go through as quickly as possible, using violent methods that had already proven themselves many times over.
The concept of collectivization in the eyes of the authorities and the people
For the authorities, collectivization, in short, was nothing more than the creation of a strong, strong agricultural machinery, which was able to carry out the plans in the shortest possible lines to achieve the desired level of development.
For ordinary people, collectivization was a tough, forcibly imposed idea of the ruling link, which many peasant farms did not like due to the fact that for years the collected property, animals, stocks simply had to be placed under the control of other people, without any guarantees of return or stable income.
Many historians who have pondered the question of what are the reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization, confidently state that if crop yields were higher in 1927-28, crop yields would not fall eight-fold, then perhaps violent methods would not be used in such a harsh form.
The decision is made and must be implemented
It was at the Fifteenth Congress of the CPSU (B.) That collectivization was proclaimed the main task. They were motivated to quickly and universally carry it out with promises of benefits, tax rate reductions, and they were supposed to supply cutting-edge technology with the most advanced equipment. And if in the beginning mass collectivization was still relatively voluntary, then in 1929 the word “violent” was added to this concept.
Goals
In order to fully understand what are the reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization, it is worth understanding the main goals that have been set.
1) Cities grew rapidly, they needed to be supplied at the expense of agriculture. But their level of development and effectiveness to achieve such a goal were too low.
2) It was planned that in the first years, the results of collectivization, namely an increase in grain imports, will refinance not only agriculture, but also the country's industrialization process.
Dispossession. Realities
The dispossession of individual farms took place with the shedding of blood and tears. People who managed to reach some heights in the development of their own economy did not want to give up property, animals, equipment “under the wing of collective farms”, but no one was going to take into account their opinions and desires. High taxes and tough credit conditions did not help either. The anti-collective farm actions, which began in the spring of 1930, eased the pressure on the part of local authorities, the peasants began to leave the collective farms, but by the fall collectivization by force was resumed with renewed vigor.
Not quite as expected, collectivization brought results. The years spent on the creation of a single agricultural machine turned people into indifferent workers, the result of which was not very similar to progressive. Despite the fact that the number of livestock was significantly reduced, the level of productivity fell, the export of bread increased and, as a result, the famine of 1932-33 came.
Now that the answer to the question of what are the reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization is clear, the following begs: "Why didn’t the authorities want to see that their idea was a failure, because there simply couldn’t be any such incentive for economic development?"