Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, None but ourselves can free our minds.
Treatment of the peasants 1.Why is it important to study the history of the peasants? 2.Why was...
-
Upload
sherman-woods -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Treatment of the peasants 1.Why is it important to study the history of the peasants? 2.Why was...
Key Economic Developments
• Witte (1890s)• Stolypin (1900s)• War Communism (1917 +)• NEP (1920s)• Collectivisation (1920s)• Five-Year-Plans (1930s)• Seven-Year-Plans (1950s)
Why nothing before Witte?
• Society still evolving from feudal to ‘free agricultural’, let alone industrial
• Reactionary land policies of Alexander III meant most peasants did not move to cities
• Hence very little industrialisation
Witte
• Aim: “Save Russia”• Focus: Industry• Theory:– Railways built– This required coal/iron– This led to ‘supporting industries’– Led to increase in agricultural goods– All areas of economy stimulated
Witte: Change
• Witte’s Great Spurt relied on foreign investment in Russia
• The new industries created needed to be protected by tariffs, which greatly increased the living costs
Witte: A Turning Point?
• State involvement in industrial planning• Russia took great steps towards becoming an
industrialised power• The notion of the peasantry being central to
Russian development took a less prominent role
Stolypin
• Aim: Save Russia (“Wager on the strong”)• Focus: Peasantry• Theory:– Through loans and land and rights, encouraged
peasants to leave mir and develop as independent farmers
– Created a new level of wealthy small-holding peasants, loyal to the regime
Stolypin: Continuity
• The peasant had always been central to Russia • No redistribution of land• In the same way that Witte aimed to develop
an industrial class loyal to the Tsar, Stolypin wanted an agricultural group loyal to the Tsar
Stolypin: Change
• The emphasis shifted from industrial to agricultural
• Peasants were viewed as people with rights and freedoms
Stolypin: A Turning Point?
• Stolypin’s ‘wager’ was the final effort of the Tsar to do anything proactive towards the peasantry
War Communism
• Aim: Save the revolution• Focus: Agriculture• Theory:– The requisitioning of grain and the execution of
those thought to be hoarding it would allow the regime to continue
War Communism: Continuity
• The peasants continue to be badly treated• Led to the organisation of peasant resistance,
the same sort as seen by Alexander and Nicholas
• Production still low• Cities still undersupplied
War Communism: Change
• The state was now prepared to use violence not as a last resort, but as a first method
• The focus was not on production, but on the distribution of what had been produced
War Communism: A Turning Point?
• It shows a negative attitude from the Communist Party towards the peasantry
NEP
• Aim: Save the revolution• Focus: Agriculture• Theory:– Farmers had to give a set amount of their income
to the state– The remainder can be sold for profit
NEP: Change
• The peasants became recognised as a hugely important section of Russian society
• A radical departure from both war communism and Marxist theory
NEP: A Turning Point?
• NEP was a departure from the period immediately after 1917
• It was a return to the pre-1917 period• It did not endure beyond 1928• Short-term it ended famine and stabilised the
economy
Collectivisation
• Aim: Save the revolution• Focus: Agriculture• Theory:– Peasants working together collectively produce
more than peasants working alone independently– Large-scale farms would produce large-scale crops– Farming would be equal, eliminating Stolypin’s
“strong”
Collectivisation: Continuity
• Link with the mir of Tsarist Russia?• It was followed ruthlessly, much like War
Communism had been
Collectivisation: Change
• Agriculture became industrialised• Wealthy peasants were viewed as dangerous
rather than desirable
Collectivisation: A Turning Point?
• After this point, there was little or no private agriculture in Russia
• The cities and the countryside finally formed a symbiotic relationship, with each needing the other
Five-Year-Plans
• Aim: Save the USSR• Focus: Industry (Heavy and Light)• Theory:– The USSR was non-industrialised– Stalin reckoned that they had about 10 years
before someone exploited this and invaded– USSR must be forcefully and totally industrialised
Five-Year-Plans: Continuity
• Link with Witte, in terms of the focus (heavy industry, coal, iron, steel and railways)
• Marxist ideology depends heavily on an industrialised working class
• The total disregard for the suffering and loss of life that it caused was a continuation of the attitudes of previous approaches
• There was a reliance on foreign expertise in the same way that Witte had relied on foreign capital
Five-Year-Plans: Change
• Attention switched back to industry – this was the first time since Witte that it became central
• The scale of involvement was far greater that Witte
• The Five Year Plans incorporated movements to modernise the army and defence, which had not been a feature of Witte’s plans
• Some new industries, which Witte had not examined, were included – electricity being the most notable
Five-Year-Plans: A Turning Point?
• After them, the USSR was an undeniably industrialised nation
• It set the scene for future centralised planning initiatives, notably the seven-year-plans
• Focus clearly shifts back onto industry over and above agriculture
Seven-Year-Plans
• Aim: Make people happier• Focus: Consumer goods• Theory:– “It is no good having the right ideology if everyone
has to walk around without any trousers”– More consumer goods led to a happier populace– This led to a contented populace– This safeguarded the regime
Seven-Year-Plans: Continuity
• State planning• Production targets• Continued city/countryside relationship• Although new targets in new areas were set,
traditional areas like industry and defence continued to be important
Seven-Year-Plans: Change
• The welfare of people is paramount, at least in the first instance
• Consumer goods• A genuine understanding of the needs of the
workers/peasants