Katie (b) Use Sources 1-5, and your own knowledge How far do you agree that collectivisation

was necessary to transform Russia into a modern industrial society? There are varying views as to the necessity of a move such as collectivisation to take Russia forward. At the time there was much genuine and whole hearted belief in the idea both from above and from young, enthusiastic party activists like Lev Koplev of Source 4. There was also of course, much opposition, though on a whole it mostly came from peasants who opposed the effect it would have on them rather than questioned its probability of success. This is beside the point however, and to really answer the question we have to look at the how the figures changed and whether there was a better alternative. It is possible to argue that collectivisation was necessary by looking at it from a communist view point. Even Bukharin who advocated against this policy talked of how socialist industrialization must differ from capitalist industrialization. They saw in capitalism a depressed relic of a system and wanted their journey to be carried outfor the goals of socialismand that its attitude toward agriculture [be] different and distinct. Collectivisation fitted the bill; it was a system nothing like you would find in the West; definitely different and distinct in its approach to agriculture (revolutionary even) and as a policy it fitted in with the ideas of socialism and communism with everyone sharing and working together for the common good. Historian Sheila Fitzpatrick acknowledges this need too. On the other hand there was also the argument that Stalins path forward, though in keeping with the socialist principles above, was going against some of the social and political framework of the NEP that represented the true Lenin approach to the building of socialism. Thus it was possible still to oppose collectivisation on political terms as Fitzpatrick says Bukharin did. She claims that the essence of the Rights position was that the political framework of the NEP should remain unchanged. Chris Ward of Source 5 however, counters this argument by bringing up that Lenin had described the NEP himself as a temporary retreat from communism hereby suggesting not only that it went against communist principles but also that he meant for a return and thus debunking Bukharins use of Lenins last wish to try and get his own way. In addition there is some evidence to suggest that at least a little of the two major rightists problem with the policy was based on their personal feelings against Stalin after he stopped playing by the rules of the political game and no longer respected Bukharins position as one of the two Himalayas of the party. Having said that it does not mean that Bukharin was wrong to oppose collectivisation; there were still many flaws in the plan and genuine reasons to do so.