There are 3 different 5 Year Plans up until Russia becomes involved in WW2. What are your thoughts on the changing priorities? Do you think the priorities were changed in response to the mood of the times - e.g: the imminent threat of Hitler invading (since he was rearming Germany)? Or do you think Stalin had no clear overall scheme for Soviet economic policy (after abandoning NEP)?
In my opinion, Stalin's aims seem to be quite misinterpreted. I think he did have an overall scheme, which was to industrialise faster than the NEP's 'snail pace', and to do this from100 years into 10. Do you think this would have been impossible and how close to achieving this do you think he got? I think that the changing priorities were indeed a response to the changing problems that Stalin was facing at the time. For example, the 1st 5YP had an emphasis on heavy industry and infrastructure in order to have the resources available for building, and large scale cities such as Magnitorsk were built. However, one of the priorities of the 2nd 5YP was consumer goods, which were used to motivate the workers and act as an incentive. This shows how the change in priorities was a response to the problems Stalin was facing, since his workers were dissatisfied and many were exiled/shot when unrealistic and constantly revise targets were not reached. In motivating his workers, Stalin hoped for better productivity in order to meet the 2nd 5YP's slightly more realistic targets. Another example would be how in the 3rd 5YP, the priorities changed to military spending, creating a war economy, heavy infrastructure, and rearmanent. This was a response to the threat of war. However, one part of the plan saw internal passports issued to workers, to deal with the 'Quicksand Society' which Stalin described, whereby workers who had become skilled in their trade constantly moved jobs in search for better pay and conditions, creating a flux. By issuing internal passports, this created a stable and steady workforce, because it prohibited the workers from moving jobs, or certainly from moving jobs as easily as they were. These are just a few examples of the changing priorities, but I feel that whilst Stalin did have an overall scheme, which was to industrialise faster than the NEP ever did, whilst asserting his leadership and revolutionising the peasants, all in order to modernise Russia. However, I feel Stalin was stopped short of his aims by the invasion of Germany, whereby Russia was introduced to WW2. So to conclude, Stalin had a clear overall aim, but his position as leader of the Soviet Union meant he had to respond to the mood of the times which he did so with the changing priorities of the 5YP plans (and his other strategies working along side, such as collectivisation). His 5YPs came to an unprecedented end because of WW2.
What do you think? Anything else to add? :)
In my opinion, I believe that his name Stalin: 'man of steel' reflects his ambitional traits of wanting to modernise in such an ambitious period of 10 years. It is very ambitious for a country like Russia to have such a hard target of modernising/industrialising, as Britain (a country which is more advanced) took approximately 150 years. Also, I feel the 10 year target is rather impossible, as like you said, the people of Russia had no incentive - they didn't see the long-term benefits, also they lived in bad living conditions of poverty etcetera... Due to this factor, their morale and determination would be inexistent when Russia needed their commitment most. However, this raises the question, did Stalin want the best for Russia in the long run, or was it to sustain his political aims and position?
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree that the changing priorities are evidence of Stalin responding to difficulties, like you said Russia needed more consumer goods to boost morale and improve the living conditions for workers (as shown in the change of priority between the first and second five year plans).
Changing priorities, for me, is essential due to the ambitious, rather impossible 10 year target, which I believe questions Stalin having an overall scheme. I believe that the target he was aiming for shows his commitment and scheming of Russia's economic policy. I think the scheme would have inevitably caused harshships, and in order to be successful Stalin had to address these hardships to maintain and prosper the scheme he may or may not have had, thus changing priorities.
Do you believe that he had an overall scheme?
I like what you're saying!! I agree. I think that after Lenin's death in 1924 Stalin wanted to assert himself and step out of the belief that he was simply Lenin's student - he wanted to make a legacy for himself. What better legacy to make than to be remembered for the man that modernised the Soviet Union in 10 years! I completely agree that this seems suspiciously like a ploy to sustain his political prowess.. and also to assert himself against his other candidates. The leadership struggle saw Stalin play many of his opponents off each other, and the move to Collectivisation and the Five Year Plans was certainly a way to mark his end of support of NEP, which pushed Bukharin out of the leadership contest. So yes, I do think that the 5 Year Plans were indeed a tactic to do this.
ReplyDeleteStalin needed to formulate a plan which would boost Russia's economy and industry to compete with the other Great Powers, for example as you said, Britain, and countries like France. For such a huge country Russia was seen to be tremendously backwards. I think Stalin might have been paranoid that Hitler was gradually turning Germany into a Fascist country by any means possible - and along with this came the extermination of Communism. This was the foundation of his ideals and everything that Stalin was meant to be working for, so of course this would have alarmed him and made Stalin want to build up his great Russia to be a match for Germany, incase they did invade (as they went on to do).
The initial focus on heavy industry and factories etc meant that many people died, but to a country as huge as the Soviet Union, these deaths didn't total. Stalin did not care about the deaths of his workers, because he saw Russia as a whole. Yes these workers were the ones who would industrialise Russia, but the sheer size of the population rendered them insignificant. However, I guess if we look at it from Stalin's point of view... WW2 was imminent and many more would die in that war from lack of industrialisation and therefore a lack of warfare ability.. than the millions who died from industrialising.
I agree with the idea that Stalin was ambitious but do you not think this shows it to be an overall scheme? The way I see it (and this means in no way that your interpretation is wrong), is that Stalin was ambitious and wanted to industrialise in 10 years and modernise Russia etc, which shows an overall scheme because this was what we wanted to do in the long term? And therefore the responding to the mood of the times was, what may seem like a deviation from his aim, but necessary in order to sustain his main overall scheme. I don't know... there are lots of perspectives you could take on it... that's just mine.
Agree with everything you both said. I don't have much to add, and I'll probably go slightly off topic but oh well.
ReplyDeleteI think that Stalin definitely had an overall aim, but he did adapt his plans as things changed, events occured and various people got in his way. It would be hard to imagine that he did not have a goal for Russia after the fall of NEP. Without a plan the amount of progress that was made would never have been possible. I do however think that sometimes he did let the power get to his head. Fear took on a massive role in securing progress throughout the 5 year plans. I think that the ambitious targets were set to make people want to achieve and to move forward - surely if there was no 'overall plan' no targets would have been set at all?
Yes I definitely agree Laura! I particularly like what you said about fear.. I think he was completely paranoid and on top of that, power hungry! Stalin would do anything to stay in power and keep that power all to himself, and in strategising the 5YP's and Collectivisation... he attempts to make agrarian reform at the same time as industrialising. Do you think this two-fold attempt at reform was too much, too soon? Or do you think it needed to be done there and then, or perhaps that it was essential to be done at the time, but that too much was attempted at once? I think I agree with the latter.
ReplyDeleteI think Stalin had a goal which was far from his reach and in order to achieve this in the time period he wanted he had to go into it in a ruthless way. I would say he took on too much and changed his tactics maybe slightly too much? He had a tendency to get bored and try something new rather than stick the original plan out sometimes. It was essential that reform took place when it did, but too much was taken on in one go. Maybe it necessary to approach everything and get started on the bigger picture? or perhaps he should have looked at smaller sections and put them all together at the end - who knows which would have turned out quicker and most effective.
ReplyDeleteI like your thinking. I guess it's easy enough for us to look back now, many years on and criticise the way he did things. Of course I can only speculate since I can't get inside Stalin's head, but as you said, maybe he should have done something else. Maybe a slower approach would have been more beneficial rather than the ambitious 10 year target to industrialise, but then we have to keep in mindset that Stalin was terrified that Hitler would invade...what does anyone do in that situation? Yes, we know that Stalin was a ruthless man, and the fact that Germany were about to invade does not excuse his actions, but I guess how else do you sort out Russia's problems? The backwardness of Russia has existed right from the roots of Tsar Alexandar, and they had never been properly sorted out despite several attempts. Stalin acquired such a huge task and was probably under a lot of pressure.. I'm not saying I feel sorry for him, but perhaps he thought he was running out of time, and coupled with his ruthless antics and his power hungry demanour and his desire to create a legacy, it all culminated in these 5YPs and also collectivisation.. which I suppose were always doomed to failure because of how Stalin was. He was always going to revise targets and kill anybody who got into his way because that's how he was, he would stop at nothing to get it done. Perhaps I'm making too many assumptions, I don't know. I'm just trying to get different perspectives on it because I think it's sometimes all too easy make sweeping statements without regarding the problems of his times.
ReplyDelete