Katie

(a) Use sources 1-3 and your own knowledge Why did Bukharin and the right-wing oppose Stalins introduction of forced collectivisation and rapid industrialisation in 1928? There were a lot of problems with Stalins visions of forced collectivisation and rapid industrialisation. For instance; the human consequences it would have on the poor squeezed peasantry, the political repercussions it could lead to and even the plausibility of the plan to achieve its predicted success among others, all mentioned in Source 3. Of course Bukharin and the right wanted Russia to develop, to see it progress into the next stages of socialism; but they were realistic and could not delude themselves with Stalins soaring targets. Their hesitation was very much justified and th eir worries were soon proved true. One main reason that Bukharin and the right-wing opposed Stalins introduction of forced collectivisation and rapid industrialisation was for political reasons. This was on two linked levels; the first out of a patriotic mind-set that advocated that Russias industrialisation should, in the words of Bukharin differ from capitalist industrialisation and the second out of fear of the possible political effects that squeezing the peasantry could end in. Specifically, Bukharin hoped to be different in that their industrialisation would be carried out by the proletariat, for the goals of socialism with an attitude that is different and distinct towards agriculture and the peasant economy. Stalin on the other hand had proposed a route that centred only around the workers and gaining as much capital as possible, turning the terms of trade largely against the rural sector no matter what the cost to the peasants as individuals but also to the worker-peasant alliance that Lenin had described as the political basis of the NEP (as put by Sheila Fitzpatrick). By forcing collectivisation and teams of labour with shared machinery from large tractor stations; Stalin hoped to increase efficiency and therefore productivity of agriculture. When the opposition proved supremely fierce and in the chaos, as source 2 says, rebellious peasant communes yielded even less grain than before (grain harvests fell 6.7% 192833) he refused to take it as a sign or let it stop him by simply taking the grain he wanted for his project anyway. The parasitic process Bukharin had spoken against. And that involved not just a little but over 18 million tonnes more than in 1928; food all taken from the mouths of thousands upon thousands. Naturally the peasants were not going to be too happy about starvation and Bukharin feared that the the regime might not be able to withstand as such a number of angry farmers with pitchforks. Of course it is possible to argue that there was some genuine concern for the peasants themselves. With 10s of millions of peoples lives filled with incredible deprivation and difficulties and 7 million dead in a single year Stalins great advancements were just slightly overshadowed by Stalins Great Famine . What could have been Bukharins greatest transformation and uplifting of the countryside ended up as its greatest tragedy. However it is highly unlikely that despite occasional big talk; the politicians of the right were much better than any other and their motives first and foremost were selfish and political. Along with collectivisation, de-kulakisation was another equally important isation from Stalins view. He painted the picture of the evil, money grabbing peasant; exploiting their hardworking brothers. This undue emphasis on the kulak danger, and policies intended to stimulate class war in the countryside by playing the poor peasantry against the more prosperous ones in the words of historian Sheila Fitzpatrick was another aspect of Stalins pursuit that was distasteful to the right. There was plenty of

Katie

evidence that suggested that such exploitation was rare, of little consequence to the big picture, and that de-kulakisation was an unpopular measure even among those who it was supposed to be saving. In fact, instead of helping further development in reality it hindered it. Large numbers of troops had to be deployed to convict and deal with Kulaks, trains had to be supplied for those set for deportation, bullets for the less fortunate not to mention the loss of man power and expertise that would leave with them or the time wasted and chaos caused. Finally Bukharin and the right were so exasperated because it didnt need to be this way. Their opposition had a purpose to it; a simple alternative to all the drawbacks touched on above as an expression of the utopian ideas that Bukharin hoped for in Source 1 lowering expectations. With a little bit of the NEPs incentives and increased price of grain thrown in. Quoting source 3; if the First FiveYear Plan targets for industrial output and development should be kept realistic, that is relatively low, success would be guaranteed with very little cost. This roaring hurry for rapid industrialisation was really not much more than false economy. Agreeing with Source 3, all of the above factors founded the Right Wings opposition to Stalins path however what really gave it the drive and the passion was personal resentment in the sense that Stalin had unilaterally changed the rules of the political game that had been played by after Lenins death. Even worse with Bukharin with whom there had been a particular sense of personal betrayal at no longer being treated as an equal. In conclusion Stalins route was mainly unacceptable on political terms as we can directly see from the words of Bukharin as the chief leader of the opposition. Politicians are selfish and though they may have used sympathy for the people as part of their campaign it is unlikely that they could have estimated the famine and the terrible effects of forced collectivisation and rapid industrialisation or would have cared much on a personal level. The opposition they saw these actions facing deterred them for political reasons out of fear for the party from peasant reprisals and uprisings as well as as a limiting factor in hindering agricultural output because of the general chaos they caused.