Living through Collectivization - Assignment Example

Living through Collectivization The village peasants look at collectivization as a disaster waiting to happen. They think of it as a degrading system of living which is contrary to what they are used to. They would rather stay in the lives that they have carved out for themselves than engage in collectivization because they are used to living on their own terms, on their own sweat and blood when one of the peasants said “We won’t even be sure of having enough bread to eat. Now, however poor we may be, we have our own rye and our own potatoes and own cucumbers and our own milk. We know we won’t starve. But in the kolhoz, no more potatoes of our own, no more anything of our own. Everything will be rationed out by orders; we shall be like mere batraks on the landlord’s estates in the old days. Serfdom-that is what it is-and who wants to be a serf?” (Nadya) They also think that they would not be able to co-exist with each other in the community farms because even in their privately owned farms, they still could not go days without disagreeing when Lukyan said “Nowadays members of the same family get in each other’s way and quarrel and fight, and here we are, strangers, are supposed to be like one family. Can we-dark, beastly muzhiks-make a go of it without scratching each other’s faces, pulling each other’s hair or hurling stones at one another?” (Nadya) They view the agitators of collectivism as people who are intent on destroying their way of life, wanting them to bend to their rule by force. One of the muzhik said, “We do as we please. But in the kolhoz, brother, it is do-as-you-are told, like a horse-go this way and that, and don’t dare turn off the road or you get it hard, a stroke or two of the whip on bare flesh…We’ll just wither away on the socialist farm, like torn grass torn out by the roots.” They also seem to scorn them because when the Communist Party Official was speaking and he said “Everything is possible, grandfather, if we all pool our resources and our powers together” there was more laughter and derisive comment from the crowd that was listening to him (Nadya). Stalin and the Communist Party were adamant in destroying the kulaks because they wanted to destroy the class system that had built up through time. They claimed that they exploited the resources for their own benefit and did not think of the future whereas they thought of the future. The Communist Party official said “Isn’t it about time you stopped thinking each one for himself, for his own piggish hide? You koolaks of course will never become reconciled to a new order. You love to fatten on other people’s blood. But we know how to deal with you. We’ll wipe you off the face of the earth, even as we have the capitalists in the city. Make no mistake about our intentions and our powers. We shan’t allow you to profit from the weakness of the bedniak.” (Nadya) Living through Industrialization The Stalinist industrialization enabled the Soviet workers to move from the countryside to the cities, thrust millions of them into technical institutes where they learnt new skills and nurtured new ambition, provided them with jobs, citizenship and enabled them to venture into politics. The Tatar electrician stated “Before October, in old tsarist Russia, we weren’t even considered people. We couldn’t even dream about education, or getting a job in a state enterprise. And now I am a citizen of the USSR. Like all citizens, I have the right to a job, to education, to leisure. I can elect and be elected to the soviet (legislative council). Is this not an indication of the supreme achievements of our country?” (Davis) The criticisms voiced in this excerpt are from the citizens who were the actual labourers and they include the soviet worker who wrote a letter in 1938 when he said, “However, to be honest, those shouts are mechanical, made from habit… in fact, in his heart, when he comes home, this bawler, eulogist, will agree with his family, his wife who reproaches him that today she has been torturing herself in queues and did not get anything-there are no suits, no coats, no meat, no butter.” The letter from a student to his teacher also seems to criticize the state of education when he said “Now, I’ll have to leave my studies at the institute. Who will study? Very talented Lomonosovs and the sons of Soviet rulers, since they are the highest posts and are the best paid. In this way, education will be available only to the highest strata (a sort of nobility), while for the lowest strata, the labouring people, the doors will be closed.” The two comments from factory workers found in the Soviet archives in the 1930s also criticize the state of affairs in the Republic when it states, “the newspapers cover up the real state of things. I am a worker, wear torn clothes, my four children go to school half starving, in rags. I, an honest worker, am a visible example of what Soviet power has given the workers in the last twenty years.” (Davis) The criticisms seem to be fundamentally opposed to the way socialism has been implemented because it seems to the people that what is being proposed as replaced is the same thing that is happening when one factory worker says “how can we liquidate classes, if new classes have developed here, with the only difference being that they are not called classes? Now there are the same parasites who live at the expense of others.” (Davis) Women: Critical to African Development This document states the obstacles to women’s participation in economic development to be the planning of development around male conceptualization of life which fails to take into account the activities of women and the designing of the development plans around an urban outlook which does not factor in the dynamics of rural life. Ambassador Tau views the sources of sexual inequality to be largely a result of the male dominated culture in Africa. This is evident throughout the article when she draws parallelisms between the strife facing women to the incessant male dominated culture and development planning. She says “First, development planning has been based largely on male conceptualization of life, which most often fail to take into account the activities of, and socioeconomic pressures impinging upon, women. Second, they are often designed from an urban view point rather than from an understanding of the dynamics of rural life.” (Tau) She believes that development planning should focus explicitly on the needs of women because they are the ones who engage in agriculture and Africa heavily relies on it for the growth of its economy. Attention to women would change the focus of development planning from the men because it would be aimed at getting money to the women who would then use it for the provision of basic needs for the family as a consequence of their access to training, intermediate and advanced technology and capital resources (Tau). Africa Betrayed Africa in Chaos Ayittey understands the major obstacles to development in Africa as self imposed by the Africans upon themselves. This is because they allowed a minority calling themselves the elite to take over from the colonialists and proceed to plunder the state. He says “True freedom never came to much of Africa after independence. Despite the rhetoric and vituperations against colonialism, very little changed in the years immediately following independence. For many countries independence meant only a change in the colour of the administrators from white to black. The new leaders began to act in the same manner as the colonialists. In fact in many places they were worse than the colonialists.” (G. B. Ayittey) He views the role of the elites in post-independence Africa as one where they consider themselves to be the only one who are deserving of the resources within their countries. He says “… they regard political power as their prerogative and government as their property. Political power is not to be shared with the ‘backward masses’ who are too uneducated to understand such esoteric as ‘constitutional rights.’ The elites deem it the responsibility of the government to provide and care for themselves. The government must provide them not only jobs but also everything from houses, cars, refrigerators, television sets, to even their own furniture at subsidized rates.” (G. B. Ayittey) Ayittey states that Africa can be developed if there is an overhaul of the pervasive control by the elite that is stifling the continent. He says “peasants who produce foodstuffs and cash crops should be allowed to keep a larger portion of their proceeds. Countries that move away from state controlled economy toward greater reliance on the private sector generally do better economically… Privatization (economic reform) seeks to place the vehicle in the hands of the people or the private sector for the simple reason that it would be better taken care of.” (G. B. Ayittey) Works Cited "Development, Elites and the State." Ayittey, George B. Africa Betrayed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992. 100, 335-36. "Development, Elites and the State." Ayittey, George B.N. Africa in Chaos. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998. 120-21, 150-52, 248, 343-44. "Popular accounts of Soviet Industrialization." Davis, Sarah. Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977. 39,72,134-5,139,173-4. Nadya. "Red Bread: Collectivization in a Russian Village." Hindus, Maurice. CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE/ DOCUMENTS: EXPERIENCING STALINISM. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. 1, 22-34. Tau, Mildred Malineo. "Women: Critical to African Development." Africa Report (1981): 4-6. Read More