Collectivization

Was a mistake? Did the collectivization process actually kill people?

Perhaps more importantly, why was collectivization needed? Is socialism really incompatible with small independent farms?

Collectivization was a good idea but it was executed extremely poorly. A gradual stick/carrot approach (like state compensation for farmers who collectivized and increased taxes on those who didn't) would have been far less destructive.

That was what Lenin wanted. Stalin just couldn't hold his load. We have to do everything in five years!

From historic hindsight can we blame him? His response seems to be correct for the coming invasion and at the boarder conflicts with Japan&Finland at the time. Not to mention that no other states were red alongside Soviet Union and during the civil war SU was attacked by western allies(france,Britan) + white army, all the separatists and opportunistic countries that surrounded soviet territories.

Now I've seen everything

I just see his reasons, but in no way will I ever support anything undemocratic and anti-worker as Soviet Union. I just think that his actions were reasonable when it came to collectivization and industrialization. I still disagree with these policies.

why did you kill rosa luxemburg?

To stop reactionaries and freikorps form over reacting into spartacist revolts. It might have lead into restoration of absolute monarchy or even worse and complete destruction of the left in Germany.

he's right you know.

not to mention how many famines non-collectivized agriculture created in russia up to collectivization.
Collectivization definitely intensified it, and used quite a lot of murder to accomplish it's goals.
5/10 hard to say they were actually worth the loss of life and giving socialism a bad name
collectivization was necessary to building socialism, but they probably could have taken a less murder-y approach

(temporarily intensified it but eliminated famine afterward)

They should have never forced Ukraine into the Soviet Union.

If there was no danger of war, it would have been much more humane and allowed to take its time.

Given the circumstances, life is all about tough choices and decisions. Sorrry, kulaks.

(Not really)

No.

In what way? People were getting exiled, not murdered, if that's what you are asking.

Two words: grain speculation.

The reason for collectivisation you are asking about - for dekulakization - was not land redistribution, nor increase of farm size - that was easily done without any additional measures beyond legislative. It was a Civil War. And it was a Civil War that wasn't noticed for what it was, because it was so fast and bloodless. It was a Blitzkrieg against kulaks

And kulaks were not farmers. They were grain trade mafia. Japan has yakuza, China has triads, Mexico has cartels, Russia had kulaks.

Since 1861 (when peasants got "free") Russian grain trade fully shifted to free market and became very volatile: it wasn't regulated properly, and this led to regular "market panics" every few years, when price rose 3-4 times (if not more). More often than not it was triggered by variations in Russian climate (which caused low crop yield), but there was no specific need for it.

Perfect situation for grain speculation, no? Hoard some grain and sell it when the price rises.

Now, add immense poverty of peasants (practically no "safety net", which means necessity to take loans under any conditions to survive a bad year) and general lawlessness of rural areas. Predictably, this created a perfect breeding ground for criminal syndicates that initially relied on grain trade speculation and predatory lending, and then started branching out. But what is important is that practically all grain was controlled by kulaks - peasants sold it to kulaks during good years, peasants bought it from kulaks in bad years. Should some peasants misbehave (start trading grain independently, or even hoarding grain themselves) - accidents would unavoidably happen.

This was the situation in rural Russia in late 19th century, it got worse by 1917, and it persisted after October (core of Lenin's NEP was basically a concession to kulaks, allowing them to return to barely controlled grain trade). Even in 1929 Bolsheviks could fully control only cities; villages were mostly unchanged from the Imperial era. Granted, there were some changes (poverty was somewhat reduced), but nothing groundbreaking. Kulak gangs were still mostly in charge.

It was this situation that needed to be changed: key gang members had to be removed and gangs weakened for law to be established - to let kolkhozs properly function in decriminalized villages.

Gradual approach wouldn't have worked. It's like trying to use taxes against drug cartels: police gets corrupted faster than drug lords go bankrupt.

Realistically speaking, execution was impossibly perfect.

Moreover, if it was "extremely poorly executed" why wasn't Stalin executed for treason (this kind of collectivisation was wholly his idea)? On the contrary - it was his opponents that lost popularity, while his reputation rose through the skies (among peasants, yes), he became the fucking rock-star of USSR to the level of people calling him dictator.

If we all lived in a perfect world, yes?

It's unlikely it would changed anything before WWII: no industrialization and kulak presence would've left Soviets extremely vulnerable to invasion.

Not to mention, kulaks almost caused artificial famine in 1927/28 by hiding grain in hopes of selling it later for higher price (there were persistent rumours in 1927 about coming invasion from England - Soviets got caught red-handed organizing Communists in Britain and London was not amused, to say the least). People were having flashbacks of Imperial famines. Peasants were literally demanding permission (or at least for government to look the other way) to physically exterminate the kulaks.

Well done, Mr. Moderate.

Source?

On what? Grain price fluctuations? Kulaks being grain traders? Dekulakizations being about exiling, rather than executions?

...

Moreover, if it was "extremely poorly executed" why wasn't Stalin executed for treason (this kind of collectivisation was wholly his idea)? On the contrary - it was his opponents that lost popularity, while his reputation rose through the skies (among peasants, yes), he became the fucking rock-star of USSR to the level of people calling him dictator.
This piece in particular.

Wait
Wait
So you're telling me that American media and education didn't tell me the full story?
You don't say

famine

This is disingenuous and you know it. Who had the power to try and execute Stalin in 1932?

While we're at it, how about you educate people on the matter of Holodomor, aka retard Ukrainians starving themselves to spite the communists?

...

I'm surprised the leftcoms don't sperg out at you more often

This question ultimately boils down to the idea that USSR was not democratic in any way and public had no input - that it was purely military occupation by Bolsheviks, and that there was no political infighting among the rulers.

To give a proper answer I'll need to describe the Soviet systems (both pre-1936 and post-) and then successfully prove public's involvement in decision-making process - a fact that runs contrary to both Liberal, Anarchist, Trotskyist, and Khrushchevite narratives; which means that each narrative has to be addressed and proven wrong.

Unfortunately, that would take more a bit time than I'm prepared to spare in a foreseeable future. But I'll promise to cough up something relevant by the weekend, though. Examining Stalin's Constitution (Soviet Constitution of 1936) - the one that significantly increased voting power of the peasantry - should provide enough of an insight, I hope.

I would say - no. Not really. Not unless you consider short skirt to be a justification for rape or something along those lines.

Collectivisation certainly was part of the causes of 1932 famine, but to consider its initiators responsible for the famine is quite hard (for unbiased observer, of course).

Collectivisation had to happen, it had to happen soon, and I'm not aware of any obvious way Kremlin could've improved the situation beyond what was done already. Well, without our hindsight, of course.

Not Ukrainians alone. Northern Caucasus got a fair share of it too.

Either way, it's a boring topic and nobody here tried to push Conquest's numbers (yet, I assume).

Or how to put the final nail in the dictatorship of the proletariat's coffin.

Now I really have seen it all.


The impact the forced collectivisation caused was a much worse one than having the process take a year or three longer. Stalin didn't do it to hastily prepare for WWII, either, since every other mistake leading up to that gives the impression he had no idea what he was doing. Not really in the mood to argue with this Stalinist guy who thinks everyone murdered or who starved was a fascist/kulak (because why else would they be killed?) though, so whatever.

Do any of you have any actual arguments?


Why are you shitposting then?

Maybe it is because they know that we hate SocDems even more than we hate them.

I think Stalin collectivized so quickly mostly because grain extraction was easier under a collective system.

He didn't care about death because he was mostly focused on quickly extracting peasant surplus for export to bolster industrialization.

Wew lad.

pro posts

Industrialization always tends to be a destructive process

This really has fuck all to do with it. Their concerns weren't ideological like that, they were threatened by the kulak power and its hability to shape the direction of official Soviet policy.

lol

In the Congress where they adopted collectivization and heavier taxation on the kulak as official policy, the plan was to have only like a fifth of the smallholdings turned into collectives by the mid 30's. It was the political reaction that forced Stalin to adopt a hardliner approach.

And idk what's with you morons itt calling anyone who isn't saying collectivization was a mistake a "Stalinist". Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev wanted the same thing.