How Successful Was Stalin in Creating a ‘socialist Economy’ in the Years 1929-1941?

...

The lack of development of the ‘light industry’ and private ownership of land in the countryside was ignored by Stalin in his movement toward the ‘Socialist Economy’ but actually, his neglect of industries like consumer goods gave rise to some capitalist notions such as private selling of basic goods such as boots and clothing – something which hinders his overall success in creating a ‘socialist economy’. Throughout the industrialisation process, Stalin had given considerable lack of care toward the light industry. In his first five-year plan house building and consumer industries were neglected, whilst in his third five-year plan consumer goods such as clothing were nominated to the lowest priority. The light industry seemed to be developing at a completely reverse rate to the rapid industrialisation of the heavy industry, and there were several cases where workers would work tirelessly in the factories to increase coal output by 300%, but see that boot prices would rise by 10-15R in 1935. The people were starved of basic needs such as clothing and boots because the consumer industry had been neglected. Intentional or not, this in theory worked in favour of Stalin and the creation of a ‘socialist economy’ because, without a consumer industry, there would be no idea of self-indulgence or capitalist notions of gaining profit from non-government led industries. However, in reality, the presence of privately owned shops in order to provide consumer goods acted in juxtaposition to the movement to a socialist way of living. The private ownership and selling of goods from this land was another failure of Stalin in creating a complete ‘socialist economy’ in the countryside. The mere presence of the private owned land, which Stalin resigned to allowing after his article ‘Dizzy With Success’ in 1930 showed that there were still capitalist elements in Stalin’s economy. The idea that the peasants had land which was not owned by the state, and that any profit made from this land would go straight back to them and not shared with the rest of the state or community was an inherently anti-socialist idea, and not in line with a ‘social economy’ at all. However, the prevalence of private industry in consumer goods and private land ownership, although important in showing that Stalin was not successful in creating a completely socialist economy, is minimal in comparison to the leaps and bounds that Stalin had in the heavy industry and agricultural industry. These two ideas were much more important in creating a socialist economy and were considerably more successful than some minor failures by Stalin to stop 1% of the 99% of peasants not in collective farms to farm on their privately owned land.

The political and ideological sentiment that Stalin set throughout the time period of 1929-1941 in terms of establishing a socialist culture in the countryside, removing the mirs and destroying the peasant class whilst also encouraging the idea of a ‘Socialist Man’ through the creation of factory-cities like Magnitogorsk was by far the most important facet of Stalin’s success in creating a ‘socialist economy’. In re-enforcing the key ideas of communism, Stalin was able to create this socialist economy through a motivation of the people and by setting the sentiment of socialism through all echelons of society; factories, countryside and working cities. First and foremost, Stalin’s use of industrialisation to destroy the right-wing of the Bolshevik’s was imperative in creating a ‘socialist economy’ because it removed the faction of his party that favoured the antithesis of a socialist economy – the NEP. In destroying the right-wing, Stalin destroyed the capitalist-themed NEP, and thus was on his way to achieving a more socialist economy. In the physical liquidation of the peasant class through the famine of 1932-1933 and also the re-distribution of their workers to the cities via destroying the old-anarchic system of mirs, Stalin had achieved the ideological aim of defeating the peasant class. This was an imperative move to creating a ‘socialist economy’, which did not contain a peasant class, only the proletariat. In converting a majority of the countryside into city workers through what can be said to be in-humane means (famine, slaughter, imprisonment) Stalin was successful in creating this part of the socialist economy. Moreover, Stalin was also able to set the sentiment of the ‘Socialist Man’ – one who would begin to uphold the socialist economy through his hard work and dedication to the state. Through his propaganda stunts such as the ‘Stankhanovite’ movement, whereby he praised one worker for drilling 14 times that of a standard coal miner – he urged into action the majority of the working population to emulate such feats. This behaviour was consistent with the ideal of a ‘Socialist Economy’. Whilst not as important as Stalin’s succesess in the heavy industry and the agricultural economy, the political and ideological sentiment that Stalin set throughout 1929-1941 regarding a ‘socialist economy’ was actually imperative in his success of creating it. Even if, in reality, much of this was through inhumane means such as famine to drive the peasant class out of existence, or lies (the Stankhanovite episode was a propaganda stunt) he set the idea of a socialist economy in motion in Russia. In achieving this, he urged the people to follow his idea of a socialist economy, and was successful in creating it.

Thus, it can most definitely be concluded that Stalin was indeed successful in creating a ‘Socialist Economy’ in the years 1929-1941 – primarily through his successes in the heavy industry, agricultural re-structure and the ideological sentiment he set. Considering the ideological state of Russia’s economy during 1929, the NEP had a very certain capitalist outlook toward it – and Stalin was successful in disparaging this as he moved toward his own socialist economy through three 5 year plans in agriculture and industry. Whilst the cost of human lives were great, and in some areas, the measures Stalin set out to achieve were met via distorted figures and corrupt officials, it was trying to do the impossible in conditions of appalling backwardness. Targets were unrealistic byt were designed to drive people forward to achieve the impossible – in this sense it was rough and crude way of progress. Yet, Stalin had not created a complete ‘socialist economy’ yet if we are to consider that capitalist ideas still crop up in the form of wage differentials in the factories during the 1930s and the presence of private land ownership in the countryside during the collectivisation process. Despite this, if we are to look at the definition of a ‘Socialist Economy’ again, we recognise that Stalin fulfils the three key facets that it entails. Stalin