2 edition of A DEBATE ON COLLECTIVIZATION WAS STALIN REALLY NECESSARY? found in the catalog.
A DEBATE ON COLLECTIVIZATION WAS STALIN REALLY NECESSARY?
MILLAR, J @ NOVE, ALEC
Written in English
Collectivization, policy adopted by the Soviet government, pursued most intensively between and , to transform traditional agriculture in the Soviet Union and to reduce the economic power of the kulaks (prosperous peasants). Under collectivization the peasantry were forced to give up their individual farms and join large collective farms ().The process was ultimately . “Stalin had developed an interesting new theory: that resistance to socialism increases as its successes mount, because its foes resist with greater desperation as they contemplate their final defeat. Thus any problem in the Soviet Union could be defined as an example of enemy action, and enemy.
Discussion Article Stalin and the Soviet Famine Abstract This article contributes to the debate about the role of Stalin in the Soviet famine of – It provides data on Stalin’s statements and actions in –33, judicial and extra-judicial repression, and really good book invites discussion (Ivanov , p. . In the case of Stalin nationalising farms, it was starvation that followed. I would not necessarily get into the motivations or ulterior reasoning on Stalin's behalf in this debate, but, the point is that as the one who introduced this policy--he was the one .
In many cases, the immediate effect of collectivization was to reduce output and cut the number of livestock in half. The subsequent recovery of the agricultural production was also impeded by the losses suffered by the Soviet Union during World War II and the severe drought of Having sidelined all his opposition within the Bolshevik party, Stalin solidified his control in by removing _____ from the ruling Politburo Nikolai Bukharin To facilitate his policy of collectivization, Stalin moved with particular viciousness against a group of peasants known as.
Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers
English reformation to 1558.
Marine Electrical Basics Workbook
Extractive metallurgy in Australia
Mrs. V. Thurnot.
Education schemes with the W.E.T.U.C.
Gun, rod, and saddle.
The molecular theory of fluids
Deportation of Certain Alien Seamen
Renaissance art in France
Electric and magnetic fields
Lingua in diaspora
Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile. Read the guide ×. Fitzpatrick’s book exposes the clash between the onset of forced collectivization and the long-held traditions of peasant society.
Stalin was indeed “Peasant Enemy No. 1” not only in the eyes of objective historians, but in the eyes of the peasants over which he ruled (p. ).Cited by: See the debate between Nove and Millar on the “necessity” of Stalin, “A Debate on Collectivization: Was Stalin Really Necessary?,” Problems of Communism (July-August ), 49– While Millar makes some cogent points about grain procurement before and agricultural production after collectivization, I do not believe he understands the political and logical continuity between Lenin and : Peter J.
Boettke. Problems of communism. - Washington, DC: USISSN X, ZDB-ID - Vol.4, p. Collectivisation in Stalin's Russia Stalin's Five-year Plans dealt with industrial A DEBATE ON COLLECTIVIZATION WAS STALIN REALLY NECESSARY?
book, but something needed to be done about the food supply which led to the introduction of Stalin's. Ivar Smilga and Karl Radek gave support to Stalin's policy of collectivization in As Roy A.
Medvedev pointed out: "Stalin produced a split among the Trotskyites in the spring ofwhen some of them (Smilga and Radek, for example) decided to support Stalin on the grounds that he was adopting their program of an offensive against the. Was Stalin really necessary. Some problems of Soviet political economy.
Not available in LRC. Add to My Bookmarks Export Book Author(s) Alec Nove Date Publisher Routledge ISBN X ISBNPreview. This item appears on.
The process was ultimately undertaken in conjunction with the campaign to industrialize the Soviet Union rapidly. But before the drive began, long and bitter debates over the nature and pace of collectivization went on among the Soviet leaders (especially between Stalin and Trotsky, –27, and between Stalin and Nikolay Bukharin, –29).
; cf. Alec Nove in James R. Millar and Alec Nove, "A Debate on Collectivization: Was Stalin Really Necessary?" Problemqs of Communism, 25, no. 4 [July-August ]: ). Millar and Nove, "A Debate on Collectivization," p.
"The grain crisis of the winter was due much more to price relationships" (ibid., p. 57). Stalin’s article was followed by a decision of the Central Committee on 14 March, On Struggle Against Distortion of Party Line with Reference to the Collectivisation Movement, which said: ‘In some raions the percentage of dekulakised peasants [i.e., peasants deprived of their property] reac the percentage of those deprived of their.
Millar and A. Nove, “A debate on collectivization: Was Stalin really necessary?” (course packet). Reading (grads only) (assign particular works): D’Ann Penner, The Agrarian “Strike” of (Kennan Institute Occasional Paper no.on reserve).
Lynne Viola, Peasant Rebels under Stalin, (on reserve or Orbis). For an excellent introduction to and critique of the various conceptions of totalitarianism, ‘A Debate on Collectivization: Was Stalin Really Necessary?’, Problems of Commun 4 (), pp. Buy this book on publisher's site; Personalised recommendations.
Cite chapter. As far as I know, Lenin was a great revolutionary removing the rule of a tyrannical Tsar, and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Che was a great revolutionary who was absolutely necessary in the liberation of Cuba with maybe some misguided views on race and sex when he was younger. who have written on the history of collectivization, sees the interconnection between the two attacks on the peasantry.
Much has been written on Bolshevik intra-party debates in the s, the origins of the grain procurement crisis ofand the beginnings of collectivization.4 Here, too, Conquest offers some new arguments and insights.
First published inWas Stalin Really Necessary. is a thought-provoking work which deals with many aspects of the Soviet political economy, planning problems and statistics. Professor Nove starts with an attempt to evaluate the rationality of Stalinism and discusses the possible political consequences of the search for greater economic efficiency, which is followed by a controversial Brand: Taylor And Francis.
With collectivization, this was necessary for the regime's survival according to Marxism/Leninism. You couldn't have Socialism in the city and Capitalism in the countryside, by their thinking.
With the Great Terror, which is toaboutare executed or die under interrogation. STALIN, WAR COMMUNISM AND COLLECTIVIZATION The discussion in perspective Of late there has been a renewed discussion on the Soviet collec.
tivization drive ofto which the number of articles on this. subject appearing in Soviet Studies bears witness. Debate a Communist. All political beliefs are welcome. Debate anything. A place where anyone of any political ideation can debate and discuss any political, social, or economic issues with communists of all types and tendencies But really there wasn't "forced collectivization"- that language itself is propaganda & an oversimplification.
The book is rounded out by a brief final chapter on the post transition from violent to "everyday" resistance. The book's basic claim that peasant revolt against collectivization was much more serious and widespread than has hitherto been thought is persuasively argued and supported by an impressive array of data.
As the first comprehensive English language study of collectivization, Lewin’s study examines peasant society in the countryside, the debate within the Politburo to undertake the collectivization drive, and the initial execution of collectivization policy. Collectivization, initiated inwas a necessary element of the Five Year Plan and resulted in widespread suffering unprecedented in the history of the region.
The aim of collectivization was to consolidate the farming land owned by peasants into collective farms (kolkhoz) that the state thought they could put to better use and increase.This book is really three books - and at almost pages it could well be.
I have spent most of the month reading about the despots Mao and Stalin - one in Wild Swans which is a partially fictionalized account of three generations of Chinese women (see review elsewhere) and then reading this book on Stalin/5().
“Stalin: Paradoxes of Power” is the first of three volumes that, in Stephen Kotkin’s explanation, tell “the story of Russia’s power in the world and Stalin’s power in Russia.”Author: Serge Schmemann.