Compare and contrast the economic policies of Stalin and Mao.
In Russia and China, both Stalin and Mao emerged as almost god-like leaders despite making their respective countries endure harsh programs of reform all economically, politically and socially. Mao can be seen to have adopted the policies of Stalin, both inspired by the Marxist ideologies of Lenin. Both Stalin and Mao recognized the economic backwardness of their respective countries and wanted to use industrialization and collectivisation as the primary means of increasing their economies. Although the original plans were very similar, the actual undertaking of the plans in addition to the results and how it helped consolidate both leaders may slightly vary. Comparing and contrasting the economic policies of both Stalin and Mao provides great insights into two valuable leaders and their quest to success in Russia and China, respectively. The initial aims of both the leaders can be identified as similar since they both focused on industrialization and collectivisation within their countries. Starting off with the introduction of the first 5 Year Plan by Stalin in Russia in 1928, and the introduction of Mao’s first 5 Year Plan in China in 1952, both focused on state directed growth of heavy industry, predominantly the output of coal, steel and petro-chemicals. The result of Stalin’s first 5 Year Plan was that there was very little production of consumer goods as the population’s focus was solely on heavy industry, which left horrible working conditions for the people, and evasive propaganda that encouraged workers to keep working harder. A lack of results urged Stalin to enforce extremely harsh punishments upon both workers and employers, sending them off to ‘kulaks’ or prison camps for slave labour. Mao’s determination for the creation of the first 5 Year Plan can differ slightly from that of Stalin’s as Mao aimed to end China’s dependence on agriculture and foreign nations for the economy. The results of Mao’s plan were less aggressive and harsh on its population, and can be seen as more successful, since the output of heavy industry was promising and China was able to support itself without the assistance of Russia.

Events after the two leaders’ first 5 Year Plans, is where a discrepancy between the economic policies of Stalin and Mao can be identified. Stalin continued on with the second and third 5 Year Plans in 1933 and 1938, respectively in addition to the economic policy of collectivization. However, Mao realized that the Soviet model for industrial development was not working in China due to China’s high ratio of people to resources and what first started off as Soviet aid had now turned into excessive loans and exploitation. Therefore, Mao modified the goals of the first 5 Year Plan and progressed towards the Great Leap Forward as his version of the second 5 Year Plan. While Stalin’s second and third 5 Year Plans set more realistic targets and focused on a greater production of machinery and arms for defence, they were considerably effective. Production of consumer goods and food was apparent however towards the third 5 Year Plan and the forthcoming of war, consumer production was once again put on hold. For Stalin’s economic policy of collectivisation, peasants were forced to collectivize farms and agriculture to accumulate more money towards industrialization which led to famine and mass death, not to mention a decline of both harvest and yield, which was quite a failure. Mao`s Great Leap Forward shifted its focus from heavy industry onto agriculture where the population was forced to collective. Farmers had to grow crops but also had to work to produce steel and iron in addition to infrastructure projects. This policy led to deaths of millions of Chinese peasants and what came to be known as the biggest famine in history. This was a huge failure for Mao, and threw off his position as leader.

Viewing both the leaders’ policies, solely on the basis of economic success, it can be said that Stalin’s policies were somewhat successful as Stalin took a backward country and turned it into a massive urban working class with most of the country being electrified, which was not available before. In addition, the policy of collectivisation fulfilled its goals as peasants were now paid wages and land and machinery was collectively owned. Looking at the human cost of the policies, both industrialization and collectivisation were hard on the population, creating poor working conditions and famines throughout the nation. Stalin had also maintained his power throughout all of his economic policies, unlike Mao who after the Great Leap Forward had to re-establish himself through the Cultural Revolutions. Despite Mao’s fall, his economic policies were also to some extent, successful as more than half of China became irrigated and the railway network virtually doubled. In addition, Mao’s reforms motivated the common people to work together and embody a Communist worker, whereas Stalin’s reforms produced “Stakhovanites”.

Stalin and Mao’s industrialization policies were both motivated by a desire to increase the industrial workforce and their collectivization policies both produced famines. Whereas Stalin stuck by his three 5 Year Plans, Mao chose to take a detour through the Great Leap Forward. While both leaders’ economic policies increased economic output for their respective nations, they did not do so without the cost of human lives. Stalin seemed to be more focused on self-sufficiency whereas Mao’s focus was on social reform. Through comparing and contrasting both the economic policies of Stalin in Russia and Mao in China, it is visible that these leaders had similar ideas for their respective nations, with little discrepancies throughout the establishment and results of the policies.