CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:27
Arguments:27
Total Votes:31
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental for USSR. To what extent do you agree? (25)

Debate Creator

stan701(67) pic



Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental for USSR. To what extent do you agree?

1. State your stand on the issue. 
2. On what basis have you decided your stand? Scale / Impact/ Time? 
3. Explain why the chosen reason is more important. 
Add New Argument
2 points

I disagree to a great extent.

To the USSR as a whole, Stalin's economic policies were crucial - after 400 years of Tsarist rule, Russia was primitive and out-of-date.

Stalin's economic policies changed that by industrializing at a breakneck pace. They managed to catch up with the rest of the world technologically in a mere 10 years, something that took the rest of Europe ~30-40 years.

This was crucial as WW2 was imminent. With its neighbour, Nazi Germany, it is quite possible that Russia would not have been able to defend itself against other European powers, had Stalin not implemented these Economic Policies.

Of course, those workers are not going to feed themselves. Collectivisation was the necessary evil to ensure that Russia could sustain itself in times of war and struggle.

Therefore, Stalin's economic policies were far from detrimental for the USSR. Although the lives that Russia had lost are not to be understated, they helped to pave the way for more future people to live in a safe Russia. Additionally, more lives might have lost more during Nazi Germany's invasion, had there not been such economic policies in place.

1 point

State your stand on the issue:

Stalin's Economic Policies were not detrimental to the USSR's economy. It caused the economy to grow as it was shifted to industrial work instead of agricultural.

On what basis have you decided your stand?:

Time - 1928 to the fall of the USSR

Explain why the chosen reason is more important:

It gave rise to the Soviet budget and they were able to weaponise themselves for the upcoming cold war and the manufacturing of nukes etcetera. It was also the blueprint for the next few dictators on how they improve the economy. And it raised the GDP per capita to 5800USD per capita. As for comparison the Germans had a GDP of 384USD during the war. Rationing came to an end and medicine and education was made free as the government was finally able to afford them.

stan701(67) Clarified
1 point

You need to identify what you are comparing with, e.g. if they improved economically, what were the downsides that were relatively less consequential?

1 point

I agree to a large extent that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental for USSR. For example, collectivisation. In the short term, it managed to boost the production of grains to about 22.6 mil tonnes collected from peasants which is two times more than in 1928 before it was in place. There was a great famine in Ukraine as a result, causing around 33 million deaths. Although the production of grains was increased, it still caused a massive number of deaths.

stan701(67) Clarified
1 point

Your argument seems to be limited to the agricultural effects on the economy. What about the industrial aspects?

1 point

Stalin's economic policies were largely detrimental for USSR. Collectivisation, part of Stalin's economic policies, allowed the government to gain control over the peasants, which made up a majority of the nation. However, this also led to mass food shortages, the Great Famine, which caused around 33 million deaths. Therefore, this shows that despite having the short term control of their peasants, the mass deaths during the Great Famine prove largely detrimental to the USSR in the long term.

1 point

Stalin's economic policies were detrimental to the USSR in the long term, basing the argument on the time factor, Stalin's policies would eventually lead to the fall of the soviet union. Although in the short term it did lead to the rapid and unprecedented industrialisation of the soviet union, it also resulted in the deaths of many people and uncomfortable living conditions for many more people of Russia in the USSR, hence, despite these short term benefits, overall it was still detrimental to the USSR as a whole, and would eventually result in the collapse of it.

1 point

I largely agree that Stalin's economic policies were detrimental for the USSR. In the long term (Time factor), the USSR, despite following Stalin's economic policies, it still fell during the 1980s. However, in the short term, Stalin's five year plans, helped Russia modernise and produced more resources such as grain production.

1 point

I agree that Stalin's economic policies were detrimental to the USSR. Collectivisation led to mass food shortages in the nation which in turn, caused the Great Famine which saw the loss of more than 30 million lives in Ukraine and to add, there was mass prosecution and killings of those who opposed it. Industrialisation had also caused discontent amongst a majority of the workers due to the harsh conditions, even killing many, and wasted many resources vital to production in the Soviet Union. Because of these issues during the implementation of the Five Year Plans, the USSR's relative grain production compared to the grain production during the Tsar's rule did not increase by much, so I agree that Stalin's economic policies were detrimental to the USSR.

1 point

Stalin's Economic Policies were mostly detrimental for the USSR. Despite his economic policies helped the USSR gain control over the people and the amount of crops increased, it caused lots of death and also led to the great famine in the USSR therefore his policies were more detrimental than beneficial.

1 point

I agree to a large extent that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental to the USSR. Although collectivisation managed to increase the amount of grain produced in the USSR and managed to make most of the farms state-controlled, the scale of the human cost far outweighs it. 1.5 million people were sent to labour camps after they resisted collectivisation. When the great famine occurred from 1932 to 1933, whatever grain was harvested was taken by the government lead to millions of people starving to death. Therefore I agree to a large extent that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental to the USSR due to the scale of the lives lost to enforce the policies.

1 point

I agree to a large extent that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental to USSR. Even though Stalin's economic policies helped USSR in terms of having a higher yield of grains per year to industrialisation which help them defend themselves. But for them to reach the state that they were in, they had to sacrifice or slaughter 20 million and above people. On top of that, the lives of the people also did not really improve as they were still giving in harsh conditions etc. and many of them still fearing Stalin or the officers.

1 point

I largely agree that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental for USSR. Although the economic policies allowed USSR to keep up with other nations economically, many people had to suffer and many human lives were lost. Human lives are definitely more important than the economic status of the country. Therefore, my stand is that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental for USSR.

1 point

Stalin’s economic policies were detrimental for USSR as they did not help USSR rather worsened it. For example, collectivisation. It benefited USSR a lot in the short term, like, 22.6 mil tonnes collected from peasants which is 2x more than in 1928 and increased in grain exports. However, there were also problems. Those that refused collectivization would get shot while those who obeyed starved. This affected the people greatly and in addition to that, many people lived in fear because of it. Hence, I feel that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental for USSR.

1 point

I disagree. Stalin's economic policies greatly increased USSR's industrial output. This allowed them to become the 3rd most industrialised nation in the world. This rapid industrialisation is one of the reasons that they were able to counterattack the German after the initial invasion. It is true that millions of people lost their lives during this period but I see it as a few million people sacrificing their lives to benefit the greater population of living citizens. So therefore, although the plans led to many deaths, the number of people that benefited were much more and therefore I believe it was not detrimental for the USSR.

1 point

I largely disagree as Stalin's Economic Policies were able to boost the USSR up to the 2nd most industrialised nation in the world, despite being one of the latest countries (among the large) to pick up industrialisation. In addition, with industrialisation, they were able to fight off Hitler's invasion after a relatively short span of time to produce weapons. However, the extent of which the economic policies were employed, especially in collectivization, led to the deaths of a very many citizens. But, comparing the impacts, I would say that Stalin's Economic Policies were not detrimental to the USSR.

1 point

Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental to USSR. To what extent do you agree?

1. State your stand on the issue.

2. On what basis have you decided your stand? Scale / Impact/ Time?

3. Explain why the chosen reason is more important.

I agree to a large extent that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental to USSR. Based on the Impact of his actions such as Collectivisation. It has to lead to more detrimental impacts as compact to its beneficial impacts.

Firstly, due to one of his Economic Policies, collectivization, has lead most of the farmers and workers in USSR to suffer and of which many passed away due to his harsh policies. Being ill, starving and overworking are the common causes of most deaths when Stalin rose. Farmers were forced to work in the field all day and were forced to hand all of their harvest produce over to the government, leaving them little to none left to feed on. This cause most of the farmers to live in fear or hate for Stalin's cruel policies. While the farmers are working in the fields, workers at factories are working in poor working conditions. Due to industrialisation, more people moved from the suburbs to the city, hoping to work in factories that would pay more, however, instead, they are met with cruel higher-ups, poor working conditions and cramped living conditions that could resemble a prison. The impact of the workers and farmers goes beyond physical and it also affect the mindset and mental health of the citizen of the USSR, especially since they are poorly-treated since Stalin's Economic Policies were implemented.

1 point

I agree to a large extent that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental to the USSR. Collectivisation managed to increase the amount of grain produced in the USSR and managed to make most of the farms state-controlled. The grain production helped USSR to open more factories and more trade, improving the country's economy. However, collectivization caused many people to die. They were sent to labour camps after they resisted collectivisation. When the great famine occurred from 1932 to 1933, more than 30 million people's harvests were taken from the government, leading to millions of people starving to death. When the government came to collect their harvest, in order not to support them, the farmers killed all their lifestyle before they arrived, causing the whole of Russia to be down on food supplies. Due to these problems that occurred during the Five Year Plans, the USSR's grain production compared to the production during the Tsar's rule actually decreased. Therefore I agree to a large extent that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental to the USSR due to the mass prosecution and killings of those who opposed it.

1 point

I agree to a large extent that Stalin's economic policies were detrimental to the USSR. This stand is made on the basis of impact. The economic policies that Stalin had implemented resulted in more harmful than beneficial impacts.

These policies were implemented so that the USSR could rapidly modernise and stay competitive. For example, in 1929, collectivization required farmers to pool their land and equipment and to work under the collective farm committee. This increased grain production enormously and introduced modern agriculture. Food supplies also became relatively stable. However, the price to pay was a famine from 1923 to 1933 that cost the lives of 5 million people. This was due to the fact that about only 10% of the produce was left to feed the farmers while 90% went to the state.

Hence, I agree to a large extent that Stalin's economic policies were detrimental to the USSR as the harmful impacts outweighed the beneficial impacts.

1 point

I mostly agree that Stalin's economic policies were detrimental to USSR. Even though the living standards generally improved slightly, so many crops were sold from the farms that there were not enough left for the people. The food produced was even less than Tsar's time up to NEP. This resulted in a famine that left 5-6 million people dead. Additionally, there was very little focus on consumer goods so even though there was 0 unemployment, the people could not buy any necessary materials with the money they earned. Many people were also overworked due to the policies and some even turned to work sick. Even if the farmers did not comply with the policies, they were killed or sent to the gulags. Despite the fact that the country benefited as a whole, many people suffered because of the policies. Hence, based on the scale of how many people were killed and tortured, his economic policies were detrimental.

1 point

I disagree to a large extent that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental for the USSR. one of the very successful operations were collectivisation. collectivisation, which meant that peasants would work together on larger, supposedly more productive farms. Almost all the crops they produced would be given to the government at low prices to feed the industrial workers. this resulted in massive growth in the economy of Russia and also grain exports. By 1937, 97 million tonnes were produced and cash crops for export and trade. not only that but freeing up the peasants meant that they could go to the town and cities to look for jobs, which meant that more jobs could be made and more money was made. from 1928–37 17 million peasants left the countryside to work in the towns. collectivisation also improved the technology of Russian agriculture as new methods/ tractors/ fertilisers/ large-scale help to produce large scale crops.

Another one of the very successful operations was industrialization. industrialization meant that the USSR opened up more to the world, economically speaking, also meaning that they would get more money by exporting the grain that they had collected from the collectivisation plan The USSR was turned into a modern state, which was able to resist Hitler's invasion. There was genuine Communist enthusiasm among the young ‘Pioneers’ as everyone was striving towards the same goal of improving the lives of all Russians and improving the economy. this shows how Stalin's Economic Policies were not detrimental to USSR.

1 point

Yes, I agree fully that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental to the USSR.

While policies such as collectivisation did bring some short-term benefits such as creating jobs for 17 million people and allowed them and their families to be provided for, in the long run, it led to the 1932 famine, leaving 5 million dead. It also led to lesser food being produced than before, and the people working on the farms started to live in fear and having their movement controlled.

Other policies included industrialisation, and even though it did reduce the unemployment rate and allowed the USSR to survive WWII; workers were overworked to meet high standards, even making mistakes could get them accused of sabotaging the nation. It led to the wages falling over time, and the number of workers slowly started decreasing.

Based on time, while these policies may be good in theory and have many benefits at the start, unforeseen circumstances eventually led to these policies failing and causing more problems than before. Hence being detrimental to the progress and future of the USSR.

chickenslap(2) Disputed
1 point

AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS

1 point

I agree, to a certain extent. WHile there were both benefits and harmful side effects, it brought more harm than good. Take for example the 1932-1933 Famine, in which about seven million peasents starved to death due to the food shortages due to collectivization, which was one of the Economic Policies. The economy and people suffered, as the number of livestock also decreased, due to Stalin wanting equality, he tried to get rid of the Rich Peasents , who were labelled Kulaks, and he wanted them to hand over their belongings, like their land, livestock and crops. They instead decided, they would rather kill and eat their animals, rather than give it to him. However, it did help improve the economy somewhat. There was an increase in grain production from 36 to 95 million tons from 1920 to 1940, however, it was not much of an improvement from pre Revolution figures, which were 86 million tons. In essence, while there were benefits, the cons outweigh the pros, and it was more detrimental, than beneficial.

1 point

To a large extent, i agree that Stalin's economic policies were detrimental for USSR. Even though the policies helped to gain more money and became a modern state, it still had negative impacts on the people as they had poor living conditions. For example, the kulaks were forced to give their crops to the government. If they did not give, they would be shot to death or sent to gulags to do manual labour to their death, or they could give their crops but starve to death. Especially during the famine from 1932-1933 which killed many kulaks as they did not have enough food to survive. During industrialisation, many people had to work hard to achieve their quota and had earned very little income which leads them to buy vodka for meals and being drunk during working hours. This caused many people to die which their efforts wasted and suffer from extreme poverty. Hence, it caused millions of death to the people which were detrimental for USSR

1 point

I largely agree that Stalin's economic policies were detrimental to the USSR. This argument will be made on the basis of scale. Collectivisation caused 17 million peasants to join the farms. While this did increase the manpower of the farms, the total number of people exterminated due to the violent opposition from the farmers was 7 million people, and the total number of people who died from famine was around 12 million. Since more people died than became farmers for the countries economy, Stalin's economic policies actually did more harm than good to the society.

1 point

I largely agree that Stalin's Economic Policies were detrimental to the USSR. His policies caused even more famine in USSR, and he caused the death of many people. One example was his policy of collectivization, which aimed to increase the amount of food produced in the USSR. It also aimed to improve the economy by this. However, his policies did not increase the food production greatly, and it still was not enough to feed the whole of the USSR. Additionally, many people, about 17 million people, were killed in the process of collectivization. This was detrimental to the country because people started to starve to death due to his policies.