"Collectivization in the USSR, in the years 1929 to 1941, was a success." Evaluate the validity of this point of view. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay Collectivization was an essential economic component of Stalin's Great Turn and the success of socialism in a single country, aimed at increasing the production efficiency to support heavy industrialization while moving towards a more Marxist society. However, the degree of success of this approach can vary depending on the perspective: political, economic or social. Additionally, there is debate among historians as to whether this was Stalin's "right" decision, as while Davies argued that it was necessary given his goals, Cohen argued that pursuing the NEP would be more effective. We cannot claim that collectivization, and the The Grand Tour itself was a political success given what had preceded it: the divisive NEP. In fact, the move was so divisive that it forced Lenin's resolution "On Party Unity" in 1921, which banned factionalism within the party. The NEP was seen as a right-wing concession because it promoted a free market, dominated by independent traders or "Nepmen", who controlled three-quarters of commerce. Additionally, the NEP was slow to come into effect, as in 1928 real wages barely exceeded pre-war levels and exports were 1/3 of those in 1913. This supports NEP's view. Davies argued that the NEP was unable to support heavy industrialization because exports were not sufficient to attract capital into industry, making the choice to abandon this initiative a success. There was another advantage, for Stalin himself, to the NEP's policy of distancing himself: an issue on which to isolate and defeat the rightists within the party; Bukharin had lost key positions in April 1929, including that of editor-in-chief of Pravda. All of these factors led to a more secure political position for Stalin, eliminating opposition and moving closer to a more traditional Marxist ideology, making this policy a political success as a move away from the NEP. merit in its socialization of the peasantry. First, this policy helped to reduce the size of the peasantry, especially the “class enemy” of the kulaks. The peasants did not really fit into Marx's society and were naturally conservative and supportive of the pre-revolutionary regime. Thus, 19 million peasants migrating to the cities was beneficial as it reduced the size of this section of society and also increased the proportion of the proletariat. Additionally, 390,000 kulaks and their relatives lost their lives in the camps following the purges of the 1930s, ridding Russia of so-called "capitalist elements." Instead of independent farmers looking out for their own interests, collectivization attempted to socialize peasants by forcing them to live on collective farms, to cultivate a common plot of land with 75 other families and with modern machinery, with food being distributed depending on the quantity they had. work. 100% of farms were collectivized by 1941. This aimed to create a "countryside proletariat", more in line with socialist ideals, so this was another political success of this policy as the greatest progress towards a Marxist state. a certain economic success as well. Grain production slowly increased after the start of the policy, from 73 million tons in 1928 to 97.