Collectivization of Agriculture

[Stephen Colbert]

Open any history text book and it will tell you the atrocious death rates in the Soviet Union vis-a-vis collectivization of agriculture. How would a rev lefty combat this argument and argue in favor of proletarian autonomy over farming by collectives or communes? :confused:

Thanks for your time. I'm using this site a social experiment. A political litmus test, if you will. Granted, I'm an American leftist, but does that even mean anything? Especially in the way America covers politics....

[Die Neue Zeit]

First, there was more than just one collectivization policy on the table for debate amongst Stalin and his colleagues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#The_crisis_of _1928


Several forms of collective farming were suggested by the People's Commissariat for Agriculture (Narkomzem), ranging in the level of common property:

- Association for Joint Cultivation of Land (Товарищество по совместной обработке земли, ТОЗ/TOZ), where only land was in common use;
- Agricultural artel (initially in a loose meaning, later formalized to become an organizational basis of kolkhozes, via The Standard Statute of an Agricultural Artel adopted by Sovnarkom in March 1930);
- Agricultural commune, with the highest level of common use of resources.
Also, various cooperatives for processing of agricultural products were installed.

In November 1929, the Central Committee decided to implement accelerated collectivization in the form of kolkhozes and sovkhozes.

From the above, one can discern three or four agricultural policies.

Next, let's look at the policies implemented. It is true that forced kolkhoz-ization has resulted in more famine, but consider the economic model. The "business" risk of underproduction was borne by the peasant "cooperatives" themselves, while the government collected quotas at set prices. No wonder why they destroyed their produce (cue suicide bombers) and held the cities "in ransom" as retaliation!

On the other hand, look at the sovkhoz-ization in Central Asia. Moreover, look at the same policy that was implemented by Khrushchev and after, which involved consolidating kolkhozy. These state farms yielded greater output, without resorting to private plots whatsoever! Why? Because the "business" risk of underproduction was borne by the state, owning the land and farm facilities while paying workers wages.

Also, since this is in Theory and not in History, check out Vertical Farming, where I think the sovkhozy model should be applied.

[ROBOTROT]

Open any history text book and it will tell you the atrocious death rates in the Soviet Union vis-a-vis collectivization of agriculture. How would a rev lefty combat this argument and argue in favor of proletarian autonomy over farming by collectives or communes? :confused:
I probably wouldn't try to combat this argument because it is most likely true. The fact is that Russia was a backwards, largely feudal nation in 1917 and since then much of the world's agriculture has become industrialised and developed. Assuming democratic collective ownership over an industrialised, capitalistic process such as modern farming won't have nearly as many problems as a totalitarian bureaucracy trying to force traditional, parochial and essentially middle-class peasants into ill conceived, top-down collectivisation. In effect, capitalism has done the work for us.

[Kléber]

In effect, capitalism has done the work for us. In a broader sense maybe, but this was exactly the problem in the USSR, immense social differentiation occurred in the countryside from 1918. Since the initial expropriation of big landlords, collectivization was delayed by factional disputes. Since the Left Opposition had associated itself with collectivization, Stalin's centrist faction opposed it until they had defeated the Left and Right. Then, confronted by an agricultural crisis (a massive shortage in food production) that the "Trotskyists" had predicted, the bureaucrats finally took on these necessary but politically risky policies. As it turns out, by that point, it was too late to conduct collectivization on a voluntary basis. Add to that the peasants' lack of representation and the Party's inquisitorial attitude to opposition and you have a collectivization program that looks more like war against the middle peasants.

And the idea that you can make the peasant love the commune without any incentives is Maoist nonsense.

[Belisarius]

personally i believe commune-based agriculture is more practical. i heard about native american tribes using a kind of weekly system, where every individual worked for only one day at the countryside. the rest of the week they did other stuff.

[Sendo]

Look at China's collectives in the Cultural REvolution. Give Dongping Han a read. The collectived agriculture, when combined with democratically elected work teams served the needs of the people as much as "autonomy", avoided the devastation of capitalist large farms, and offered social sharing of farm equipment (why 100 tractors for 100 private farms?).

I don't know enough about the USSR, but I'll trust the links and words others are sending to defend the USSR. Again, as with any socialist state, if we take the "starvation" numbers and put them up to historical scrutiny or common sense, we find their proportions to be laughable and their causes multiple.