AQA 7042 · 2N · R13.2⁄2 - Collectivisation: peasants, famine and results
This lesson examines how collectivisation changed peasant life, how the famine of 1932–1934 developed, and how its results should be judged. The organisation of collective and state farms and the programme of mechanisation belong to the preceding split lesson; here they are only background to the human consequences. The subject includes deportation, coercion and mass death, treated directly but without graphic detail.
Kulaks and dekulakisation
The specification uses the term kulak. Before collectivisation it could mean a relatively prosperous peasant household—perhaps one that hired labour, rented out equipment or traded more produce than its neighbours. By 1929–30, however, Soviet officials used the label far more elastically. A household might be classified as kulak because it possessed more property, opposed policy, was denounced by a neighbour or simply enabled a local official to meet a target. It is therefore misleading to write as though every person persecuted as a kulak belonged to one clearly measured wealthy class.
At the end of 1929 Stalin called for the “liquidation of the kulaks as a class.” This meant eliminating their independent economic and social position, not merely taxing them more heavily. A secret resolution of 30 January 1930 divided targeted households into three broad categories:
| State category | Intended treatment | Human consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Alleged active opponents | Arrest, forced-labour camp sentences and, in some cases, execution | Individuals were removed through police repression, often without an ordinary judicial process. |
| Alleged major exploiters or supporters of opposition | Confiscation followed by family deportation to the north, Siberia, the Urals or Kazakhstan | Adults, children and older relatives were transported together and placed in poorly prepared “special settlements.” |
| Others labelled kulak | Confiscation and resettlement away from their existing home, sometimes within the same district | Families lost land, livestock, housing, local networks and status even when not deported far away. |
This was dekulakisation: confiscation, exclusion and repression directed at people whom the state classified as kulaks. Archival-based estimates vary with dates and categories. About 1.8 million people were deported in the principal waves of 1930–31; a broader count extending through 1932 is higher. These were people, not just labour units: deportation exposed whole families to hunger, disease, cold and separation, and many died prematurely.
The impact also reached those who remained. Removing experienced households could deprive a village of labour, knowledge and social leadership. More importantly for Stalin's political purpose, the campaign warned every peasant that resistance, relative prosperity or an accusation could lead to dispossession. The category thus helped the state break independent village power while making economic initiative dangerous.
Other peasants: resistance and survival
Collectivisation transformed the lives of peasants who were never classified as kulaks. Mark Harrison estimates that the change directly affected about 120 million villagers. Its central social effect was a shift in control: the state and farm authorities claimed produce first, while peasant households received what remained through payments linked to recorded labour days. Rewards could be late, small or made in kind. In the food crisis, being a residual claimant meant that a family ate only after state claims had been met.
Peasant responses were diverse. Some complied, whether from belief, pressure or lack of an alternative. Others petitioned, left collective farms when briefly permitted, hid grain, worked slowly, migrated to towns, joined protests or attacked officials. Many households slaughtered animals rather than surrender them; livestock also died because fodder was taken, care was disorganised and famine deepened. It would be inaccurate to turn all this into a single story of “kulak sabotage.” The agents included many kinds of peasant, and state policy, poor management, shortage and resistance interacted.
The scale of livestock loss shows the disruption. Harrison's reconstructed series gives these Soviet totals:
| Livestock | 1928 | 1933 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Horses | 32.1 million | 17.3 million | Down about 46% |
| Cattle | 60.1 million | 33.5 million | Down about 44% |
| Sheep | 107.0 million | 37.3 million | Down about 65% |
| Pigs | 22.0 million | 9.9 million | Down about 55% |
These figures matter twice. Animals were household wealth and food, so their loss reduced peasant security. Horses were also a major source of traction, so fewer animals weakened the capacity to sow and harvest at the very moment officials demanded more grain. A protest against the new order could therefore become one part of a damaging feedback loop, but the state created the coercive conditions and continued extraction despite the collapsing rural resource base.
Peasants also adapted. From 1932 households regained limited rights to small private plots and to sell some privately produced food. These concessions did not restore the independence of the 1920s, but they became vital to survival and exposed a weakness in the official system: private household effort supplied food that collective rewards often failed to provide. Rural society after collectivisation was therefore neither passive nor fully controlled in everyday life, even though the state had greatly increased its administrative power.
How the famine developed, 1932–1934
Famine was not produced by one isolated event. A sequence of falling food availability, unrealistic state expectations and coercive decisions turned agricultural crisis into mass mortality.
1. The food base weakened. Drought harmed the 1931 harvest. In 1932, damp weather, crop disease, harvest losses, shortage of animal traction and the disorganisation created by rapid change all reduced the grain actually gathered. Historians disagree about the relative weight of environmental damage and policy-induced disruption, but the harvest was substantially smaller than contemporary official claims suggested.
2. Procurement remained the priority. Officials assessed output too optimistically and continued to demand grain for towns, the army, state reserves and export. In the late 1920s, centralised and decentralised collections had taken a little over 10 million tonnes, leaving more than 50 million tonnes at peasants' disposal. In 1931/32 collections approached 23 million tonnes while the amount left to peasants fell to about 33 million tonnes. A smaller harvest combined with a larger state claim made rural households carry the shortage.
3. Enforcement removed families' safeguards. During late 1932, officials searched homes, confiscated food and seed reserves, imposed fines in kind and placed some villages or districts on blacklists, cutting them off from trade and supplies. The law of 7 August 1932 allowed extreme punishments for taking collective property, including grain from fields. These measures treated attempts to retain or find food as crimes against state property.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account