You might already have the idea that this course is about comparing and contrasting themes and ideas across the period 1855 to 1964. This is what we mean when we say we need to think synoptically. As such, we have just looked at serfdom. By the time we finish agriculture you need to be able to decide if you agree that Collectivisation under Stalin was “a second serfdom” (S Smith) or not.
This article from The Guardian reflects this. The present ruler of Russia, Vladimir Putin, has called for industrial growth akin to Stalin’s in the 1930s. The quality and cost of this industrialisation is debated. However, it in turn is compared with Sergi Witte’s “Great Spurt” of the 1890s. Both focused on heavy industry (what Stalin would later call the “sinews of war”) , and both had great state projects (Witte ordered the building of the Trans-Siberian Railway whilst Stalin ordered the construction of the White Sea Canal and the Dnieper Dam. Both also averaged growth rates of about 8% per year, both centralised power and exploited the peasants.
You might think such similarities are overwhelming then. However, when we scratch below the surface, there are important differences as well. Witte’s industrialisation was a capitalist one (he placed Russia on the Gold Standard) whilst Stalin was a Marxist who aimed for “Socialism in One Country” (and autarky). We might also want to refelct that Stalin was able to industrialise the USSR to an extent that it could (just) defend itself against German invasion in 1941. Witte’s industrialisation did not leave Romanov Russia in a position where it could fight effectively in 1914. We might also like to reflect upon the accuracy of Stalin’s figures (no-one could afford to miss their targets) and the levels of suffering that the two periods of rapid industrialisation caused the workers.
In other words, things that look the same in this course can sometimes mask significant differences.
Mr Kydd.
