In answer to the original question, the 5 year plans were indeed successfull at burgeoning Russia's heavy industry. The five year plans took on the characteristic of minimizing light and medium industrial developement (textiles, tractors, private cars, general household equipment, etc.) and instead, focused on providing the nation with heavy industry output of refined metals, oil, and above all, war machines. Why was this important? Stalin was convinced that the invasion of the Soviet Union was being plotted by the capitalist imperialist powers as a counter-revolutionary measure to the existance of the first (and most powerful) communist state. Indeed at the time, Russia possesed extraordinaly little in the way of military mechanizion and modernization.
An important point that was mentioned was the collectivation of farms. It's important to realize that the famines created were largely due to the innefficient method of farm collectivization. The five year plans' focus on heavy industry did limit agricultural growth because no light industrial production could possibly aid in the mechanization and modernization of agriculture. However, the famines that resulted were major side-effects of neither the prefference for heavy industry, nor the direct acquisition of grain by the state for resale. It was the method of collectivization, which is not a direct consequence of state-industrialization, which was to blame for the innefficient management of farms.
some empirical proof: during world war two, the Russian government was facing a major famine among the peasants and soldiers. Stalin resorted to the only hope available, by instituting private farms. All of a sudden, the Russian government had more food then they could deal with. They reinstituted collective farms some time later and saw a sharp decrease in agricultural production.
Industrialization in this manner often involves robbing the peasantry of profit. However, in the long run, the country acquires a stable industrial power, only then can democracy floruish. Otherwise, people tend to vote for radicals or extremists who promise economic amelioration, but usually tend to pursue an abstract ideological agenda. This is why I disdain the issue of Iraq. For in many ways, Iraq was a well-off progressive industrialist nation. All of its attempts at industrialization were wisely geared towards less dependence on oil. However, because of the profit to be had in oil sale, it could simultaneously provide free social benefits such as health and education (bypassing the need for severly opressive institutions). Unfortuntaly, Saddam Hussein made the strategic miscalculation of attacking a potentially hostile fundamentalist Iran, and embroiled Iraq in a disastrous deciding war. (Another example of why competent leadership plays a strong role in dtermining the success of state industrialization, as leadership is the sole deciding factor).
.
