By Sonia A. Sanjay (printsbysonia)
Assess the effectiveness of Stalin’s industrial policy.
Upon assuming power, Stalin set out to create a modernised Russia with an
economy strong enough to sustain the looming threat of a potential war with the
West. This was done by implementing industrial policy by means of the Five-Year
Plans. The effectiveness and outcomes of Stalin's industrial policy can be divided
into three categories: political, economic, and social, and their impacts can be seen
in the USSR's ability to successfully navigate a German invasion, advances in
industry, and some improvements in living standards, ultimately making Stalin's
industrial policy effective for the state.
Firstly, it may be argued that Stalin’s industrial policy was effective for the state. The
five-year plans saw Russia modernise and become the second largest industrial
power in the world after the US. From automobiles to chemicals, new industries
were created, which generated massive employment opportunities, leaving the
unemployment rate at virtually zero by 1940. Moreover, industrial production of oil,
coal, and pig iron doubled throughout the period 1928–32, which meant that in 1939,
industrial production levels were far higher than they were in 1928. This massive
progress in industry ensured that Russia was able to withstand the Nazi attack when
they invaded in 1941 and achieved victory for the USSR in 1945, thereby proving
that Stalin’s industrial policy was politically and economically effective for the state
as it fulfilled Stalin’s aim of making Russia strong enough to withstand a war with the
West.
Moreover, Stalin’s industrial policy was arguably effective for the people. As a result
of industrialisation, they were given access to free education, basic healthcare,
sickness benefits and pensions. From 1934 onwards, it was compulsory for children
to receive 11 years of education, which led to illiteracy declining from 50% in 1924 to
19% in 1939. Furthermore, there was a degree of social mobility. Women were given
equality for the first time and were given increasing opportunities in areas such as
education and medicine, where they were given career opportunities as doctors,
scientists, canal diggers, etc. By 1940, 40% of workers were women.
Industrialization also meant that Soviet citizens were largely free from the
unemployment suffered in other nations during the Great Depression, and even had
the possibility of personal advancement. This demonstrates that Stalin’s industrial
policy enabled some social progress and allowed some basic necessities to be met,
making it partially effective for the people.
However, Stalin’s industrial policy wasn’t effective for the state due to a lack of
substantial planning and coordination. For instance, the massive Gorki automobile
plant was built, but the fact that it might need an energy supply was ignored. The
economy was run by men with primarily social and political objectives and little
knowledge of economics and industry. This resulted in either an over or
underproduction of goods, leading to a wastage of scarce resources. Resource
By Sonia A. Sanjay (printsbysonia)
Assess the effectiveness of Stalin’s industrial policy.
Upon assuming power, Stalin set out to create a modernised Russia with an
economy strong enough to sustain the looming threat of a potential war with the
West. This was done by implementing industrial policy by means of the Five-Year
Plans. The effectiveness and outcomes of Stalin's industrial policy can be divided
into three categories: political, economic, and social, and their impacts can be seen
in the USSR's ability to successfully navigate a German invasion, advances in
industry, and some improvements in living standards, ultimately making Stalin's
industrial policy effective for the state.
Firstly, it may be argued that Stalin’s industrial policy was effective for the state. The
five-year plans saw Russia modernise and become the second largest industrial
power in the world after the US. From automobiles to chemicals, new industries
were created, which generated massive employment opportunities, leaving the
unemployment rate at virtually zero by 1940. Moreover, industrial production of oil,
coal, and pig iron doubled throughout the period 1928–32, which meant that in 1939,
industrial production levels were far higher than they were in 1928. This massive
progress in industry ensured that Russia was able to withstand the Nazi attack when
they invaded in 1941 and achieved victory for the USSR in 1945, thereby proving
that Stalin’s industrial policy was politically and economically effective for the state
as it fulfilled Stalin’s aim of making Russia strong enough to withstand a war with the
West.
Moreover, Stalin’s industrial policy was arguably effective for the people. As a result
of industrialisation, they were given access to free education, basic healthcare,
sickness benefits and pensions. From 1934 onwards, it was compulsory for children
to receive 11 years of education, which led to illiteracy declining from 50% in 1924 to
19% in 1939. Furthermore, there was a degree of social mobility. Women were given
equality for the first time and were given increasing opportunities in areas such as
education and medicine, where they were given career opportunities as doctors,
scientists, canal diggers, etc. By 1940, 40% of workers were women.
Industrialization also meant that Soviet citizens were largely free from the
unemployment suffered in other nations during the Great Depression, and even had
the possibility of personal advancement. This demonstrates that Stalin’s industrial
policy enabled some social progress and allowed some basic necessities to be met,
making it partially effective for the people.
However, Stalin’s industrial policy wasn’t effective for the state due to a lack of
substantial planning and coordination. For instance, the massive Gorki automobile
plant was built, but the fact that it might need an energy supply was ignored. The
economy was run by men with primarily social and political objectives and little
knowledge of economics and industry. This resulted in either an over or
underproduction of goods, leading to a wastage of scarce resources. Resource
By Sonia A. Sanjay (printsbysonia)
