Soviet Credo Chapter 1

market policy within the NEP framework, which involved the collapse of the market relation between the regime and peasantry in 1927-1928. 3 When Stalin decided to embark on rapid industrialisation, grain procurement to supply the towns with food, raising funds through grain exports and a labour supply were essential to this drive. This led Stalin to adopt the policy of collectivisation, which began as only voluntary but in the early 1930s involved driving the mass of the peasant households on to collective farms through any means necessary, freeing him from the dependence on and control of the rural capitalists. However, there was a strong defence for the rightist policies within the party. 4 Stalin, therefore, in order to fuel his immediate industrialisation requirements, had clear objectives for this urgent and rapid collectivisation program. Politically, he aimed to establish his power within the party by eradicating the obstructive rightist support. Economically, he undoubtedly wanted it to provide enough procurement and a labour supply, and ideologically, he aimed for the socialisation of agriculture by eliminating the Kulaks and the other capitalist elements within it to establish central control. The attainment of these objectives would, therefore, contribute considerably to Stalin's desire for unhindered

1996

Osteuropa, 2016

The collectivisation of agriculture is one of the central events in the early Soviet Union, alongside enforced industrialisation. The amalgamation of private farms to form collectives changed the social and economic foundations of the Soviet system of rule and still influences Russia's economic culture today. The Bolsheviks assumed that the mechanisation of soil cultivation in large, socialised farms was superior to traditional land management. However, the prospect of mechanisation did not lead the farmers to voluntarily come together in collective farms. The Bolsheviks reacted to resistance among farmers with violence and force. During the early 1930s, the repression of the farmers, slaughtering of livestock and the collapse of the grain industry resulted in starvation which led to the deaths of over six million people.

1. Was the policy of collectivization motivated more by a desire to destroy the peasants' traditional way of life or by a desire to achieve socialist modernization? Choose a side, discuss the evidence you find for that position in our two textbooks, and evaluate how successful the policy was in terms of the objective you decided to highlight. Although the lives of peasants were greatly impacted by collectivization in a myriad of ways, some of which included violence and terror, the policy of collectivization was more motivated by a desire to achieve socialist modernization and catch up to the industrial progress of the West. This is clear due to the widespread cultural reorganization in Russia, such as the secularization of church and state as well as in the use of terror as a means to subdue public resistance and secure the stability of new leadership, despite the atrocities and injustices inflicted upon the lower and peasant classes as a result. It was the primary concern of the Bolsheviks and Stalin to modernize and industrialize Russia. This modernization meant a shift in the entirety of Russian culture in order to dispose of the old regime and, as a result, the peasant way of life was also altered; however, this was not the primary intention of the Bolshevik party, simply a side effect of their political agenda. Stalin once said, "socialism in one country," advocating for a monolithic and nationalistic culture that united the people under collectivization and socialism. "He meant that the country could bring about socialism by creating an industrial base and by raising the cultural level of the people without waiting for international revolution," (78, Kenez, emph mine). Stalin advocated for "independence and pride" meaning the people must be united through a culture that valued socialism and industrialization. This meant that Russian way of life was being challenged and altered in order to fit these new political ideals of the country. We can see the more encompassing ways in which the entirety of Russian culture was altered, not just the peasantry, in the secularization of Russia. The soviets believed that the old regime used religion in order to manipulate the lower classes into accepting their lowly conditions in life as divine or destiny. In order to take power from the church, religious institutions were forced to register members, holidays were outlawed and replaced with socialist propaganda holidays, priests and religious people were arrested, and churches were shut down. Therefore, the challenging of traditional Russian culture, including that of the peasant way of life, was used as a tool to dismantle the remnants of the old regime to prevent revolt and resistance. This can be seen within Russian society on a larger scale than simply the peasantry. The utopian ideals of the soviets were seen as only possible by cutting ties with old traditions and ways of life that supported the ideals of the monarchy. Although peasant life was undoubtedly altered and challenged, it was only a result of soviet's political goal to dismantle the old regime and institute a new leadership. This was clearly effective according to Kenez in that 60% of the general public supported the effort to collectivize, abandoning (albeit resentfully) their old way of life. 1 1 Page 85 kenez

Research Report of Kochi University, 1979

This paper is an attempt to reappraise Nikolai Bukharin, who endeavored to preserve the NEP (New Economic Policy) for his life and was finally defeated by Joseph Stalin. For writing this paper I was very much indebted to works by A. A. Barsov including Balance, seen from the viewpoint of value, of Exchanges beween Cities and Rural Areas. The construction of socialism after the "the great turn" at the end of 1929 not only transformed a backward agricultural country into an industrial country, but also fundamentally remolded the Soviet society as well as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union itself. The situation such as fusion, an adhesion and an unification of the Party and the State, in other words, "etatization of the Party" was completed in the political sphere.

2018

The opening of the Soviet archives has enabled us to obtain a much more accurate understanding of the character and scope of the terror, its various phases and their interconnection. From the beginning of 1936, on Stalin's initiative, the treatment of the former members of the party oppositions changed for the worse (Vol. 6: 281-283). In previous years many of them were expelled from the party, and some were confined to prison or exiled. But many others were given posts in the party or in government departments. In 1936, however, measures were prepared and enforced which indicated that the whole group was to be eliminated. The visible manifestations of these repressions were the public trials of August 1936 and January 1937. Early in 1937 a general purge of senior economic officials was launched, extending well beyond the former oppositionists, and this was accompanied by an attack on the middle ranks of the official strata more generally, including leading personnel in the regions. This continued during 1937 and 1938 and, on a reduced scale, in the last two and a half years before the war. These developments may be categorised as the nomenklatura purge. The nomenklatura was a list (or rather a set of lists) of posts, appointments to which were approved by the party. Such lists existed at many levels of the hierarchy and in every region. By extension, Soviet officialdom has often been called 'the nomenklatura.' We had a general understanding of the nomenklatura purge of the late 1930s before the opening of the archives, because many of its actions were reported in the press at CHAPTER 1