Half-failure or Half-success? Reevaluating Discourse on Stalinist Industrialization

Book review: Khanin G.I. (2023) The Economy of the USSR during the First Five-year Plan, Novosibirsk: SibAGS (in Russian).

Abstract

The relevance of discussions on authoritarian modernization in contemporary Russia has reignited interest in analogous historical periods, notably through Grigorii Khanin’s new monograph on the first Soviet five-year plan (1928/1929–1933). Khanin’s work, which draws on the analysis of leading Western Sovietologists and his own, offers a predominantly critical evaluation of the plan, highlighting its overly ambitious targets, disorganized and harsh implementation strategies, and the achievement of only about 60% of its goals. Despite these criticisms, the Stalin era’s enduring popularity in the Russian mass consciousness suggests a general dismissal of such negative appraisals, indicating a need to explore the dichotomy between liberal critiques and more favorable mass perceptions beyond the simplistic explanation of the influence of state propaganda. Khanin argues that the criticisms of the first five-year plan are valid when viewed through the lens of “building socialism”. However, considering the plan as an instrument of “catch-up development”, akin to models employed in non-European countries with mixed outcomes, calls for a more nuanced critique of authoritarian modernization. The forced migration from rural areas to cities, reminiscent of Arthur Lewis’s labor-intensive modernization strategy of the 1960s and 1970s, underscores this complexity. Despite failing to meet initial targets, the first five-year plan achieved remarkable growth in critical sectors like industry and construction, supporting Khanin’s suggestion that the Soviet leadership used inflated targets more as a mobilizational tool than as a realistic guide. This perspective challenges the notion that there was a viable alternative to the policies of the time, emphasizing the importance of evaluating critical socio-economic shifts by considering efficiency, effectiveness, and the limited range of available options. This  approach is relevant not only to historical analysis of the Stalin era but also to understanding contemporary challenges.