Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:42:13.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analysis of Soviet Agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Alexander Gerschenkron
Alexander Gerschenkron
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles and Discussions
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Winter 1951 , pp. 42 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jasny, Naun, The Socialized Agriculture of the USSR: Plans and Performance, Grain Economics Series, Food Research Institute (Stanford University, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1949), pp. xv, 837. $7.50Google Scholar.

2 It is true that in an early passage of the book Jasny says: “Much has been written on the great Soviet reorganization drive in general and the collectivization of peasant farming in particular. The appraisals range from enthusiastic acclaim to prophecies of complete failure, with extreme views greatly predominating. The present writer cannot deny having an appraisal of his own, but this study has not been prepared to expound this appraisal. Rather its purpose is to give the reader an opportunity to form his own opinion” (p. 5). But it is difficult to understand what this statement means in the light of the contents of the book. For Jasny does not hide his opinions, and there is no reason why he should. Not only the general tone in which the study is written, but numerous explicit statements make the author's appraisal abundantly clear. To cite a few examples: Soviet agriculture is “incompatible with a permanently sound economy” (p. 33); it is “neither efficient nor stable” (p. 37); “new organizational forms would have to be found for agriculture” (p. 38); “the results of the collectivization have been deplorable” (p. 60).

3 Jasny, N., “Soviet Statistics,” Review of Economics and Statistics, XXXII (1950), 92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Cf. Stalin, I., “Otnositel'no Marksisma v yazykoznanii [On Marxism in Philology],” Bol' shevik, XXVII, No. 12 (June 1950), 12Google Scholar.

5 Since the time of writing (spring 1950), it has become clear that the Soviet government has launched an ambitious campaign of kolkhoz consolidations, designed to enlarge substantially the size of the individual collective farm. This is a move in the opposite direction. It would be difficult to argue, however, that Marxian ideas have played an important role in initiating the new development. It seems that essentially the need for accelerated transfer of man power into industry in conjunction with a desire to tighten even further the government's control over, and its supervision of, collective farms must be held accountable for the new policy. As usual, the motivations are pragmatic rather than ideological.