Ussr

USSR history

Uploaded by

Laarkisha Angelina Ngoruw Moyon

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

9 views

Ussr

USSR history

Uploaded by

Laarkisha Angelina Ngoruw Moyon

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 3

Ussr

Name:Angelina Ng
Roll no: 220421

Topic: Alec Nove, chapter 5 “ The Great Debate”.

The great debate is about the economic policies and development strategy for the Soviet Union in
the 1920s. The key points of the debate include:
● The conflict between two attitiudes the party majority and the left : one focused on
maximizing efficiency, profitability, and adapting to existing circumstances vs. one focused on
changing the proportions and size of the economy to maximize growth and emphasize
economic development strategy.
Trotsky, Preobrazhensky and their followers developed two further criticisms. Firstly, they held that
the official line had been too favourable to the better-off peasants. The party majority was under
continuous attack from the left for being soft on the kulaks. Secondly, the left opposition contended
that the party's industrialization programme was too modest, that a major campaign to build up
industry far beyond the levels of 1913 should be launched forthwith.

Both Stalin and Bukharin argued at this time that higher growth rates and additional investments
advocated by the left opposition represented an adventurist and unpractical policy, which would
endanger hard-won financial stability and impose intolerable sacrifices. This would be inconsist-
ent with the principles of NEP.

It is true that the same Stalin was a few years later advocating tempos which were far more
ambitious and ruthless than any which the opposition had proposed.

● Debates over the role of agriculture and industry, and the "natural" relationship between
them that should be maintained.

Post-Russian Revolution (1917), the Soviet government aimed to rapidly industrialize. However:
Agricultural sector dominated the economy, Peasants controlled food production and Government
needed agricultural surplus to fund industrialization. Investment prioritized heavy industry over
agriculture leading to Peasants lack of material incentives to sell produce. Hence, the liimited
agricultural productivity hindered industrialization.
The Consequences was that Insufficient incentives led to reduced agricultural productivity and
Limited agricultural output constrained industrial growth. Therefore, Government's industrialization
plans were hindered.

Russia was stuck in a vicious cycle: Russia needed modern tools (imports) for agricultural
modernization. To pay for imports, Russia needs to export grain. But, Russia lacks sufficient
marketed produce (grain) for export. And, towns need food, competing with export demands.

● Discussions and proposals from experts on investment criteria and growth strategies, with
political leaders using these to suit their arguments.
Debates on investment priorities:
Some experts advocated for rapid industrialization and prioritizing "key projects" or
"shock-constructions" (udarnye stroiki).

Others, like the oil expert mentioned, cautioned against overly ambitious plans that ignored practical
limitations.

Conflict between specialists and enthusiastic revolutionaries:

Specialists often provided more conservative estimates based on technical knowledge."Keen
comrades" believed that revolutionary spirit could achieve miracles, often pushing for more
ambitious goals.

Short-term vs. long-term planning debates:

Some argued for using scarce capital to maximize immediate employment and production.

Others advocated for longer-term development strategies, potentially involving continued

dependence on the developed West.

The role of agriculture in development:

There were discussions about the balance between agricultural development and industrial growth.

These debates often involved political leaders using economic arguments to suit their purposes, as
evidenced by Lenin's quote about politics dominating economics.

● Debates over the financing of capital accumulation, the strategy of economic growth and
industrialization, and the role of the peasantry after land reform.
These debates reflected the complex challenges faced by Soviet planners in balancing immediate
needs with long-term development goals, all within the context of a newly established socialist state.
These debates were among the first of their kind, with politicians and economists becoming
conscious of such development problems in the Soviet Union before they arose elsewhere. The
discussions took place in a relatively open environment, with genuine public debates occurring in
academic and political circles, despite the growing influence of Stalin's political machine.
One key aspect of the debate centered on the role of agriculture in economic development. There
was a tension between the desire for land reform and the need for industrialization. The source
points out that land reform often had the short-term effect of reducing marketable production, which
conflicted with the need for increased agricultural output to support urbanization and exports. This
dilemma was particularly acute in the Soviet context, where ideological barriers limited potential
solutions, such as the emergence of a commercially-minded peasant minority.

The debate also touched on the conflict between short-term investment criteria and long-term
development strategy. Some argued for using scarce capital to maximize immediate employment
and production, given the acute shortages following the civil war. Others advocated for longer-term
strategies, potentially involving continued dependence on the developed West. This reflected a
broader tension between focusing on existing economic forces and profitability versus emphasizing
changing economic proportions and maximizing growth.

In the chapter it is mentioned approaches, such as Bukharin's emphasis on producing goods that
peasants wanted, which implied slower growth but aligned with the New Economic Policy's alliance
with peasants. In contrast, more radical 'industrializers' pushed for rapid creation of the USSR's own
heavy industry.These debates reflected the unique challenges faced by Soviet planners in balancing
immediate needs with long-term development goals, all within the context of a newly established
socialist state. The text emphasizes that while these issues have arisen in many places outside
Russia, the Soviet experience was pioneering in confronting these development challenges explicitly.

The great debate reflects the complex interaction between theory, expert judgment, and political
struggles over the economic direction of the Soviet Union in the 1920s.