• @gun@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    There was a positive correlation between collectivization and crop output in Ukraine during this time, and the famine began before collectivization started. This discounts the idea that collectivization caused the famine. Instead, collectivization was introduced to help deal with the famine.

    Also, collectivization is not some communist ideal. It is a revolution in production that every modern country has undergone at some point in time. In America, farms are heavily collectivized with heavy subsidies from the US government. The chicken industry, for example, is an oligopoly of four major corporations.
    This mode of farming where everyone owns their own subsistence farm cannot support an urbanizing population. In early 1930s USSR, farming was still done with ox and plow. Individual farmers could not afford tractors and other equipment for their small plots of land. But with pooled resources, it is possible over larger tracts of land.

    • @southerntofu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      the famine began before collectivization started

      You’re rewriting history. Ukraine had soviets long before Stalin. In fact, it had reached such a level of collectivization/expropriation that Lenin/Trostky had to send the Red Army to massacre the population (and the anarchist uprising).

      You should do some reading about the Makhnovtchina and the anarchist communes of Ukraine.

      • You should do some reading about the Makhnovtchina

        Okay.

        • forced conscription & summary executions
        • Kontrrazvedka
        • “Alexander Skirda acknowledges: “The idyllic dream of ‘cooperative enterprise’ was to dissolve in discord and bitterness, or even in ‘dismal despair,’ with commune workers quitting one after another.””
        • “Volin, one of the leaders of the Makhnovists, explained that there developed “a kind of military clique or camarilla about Makhno. This clique sometimes made decisions and committed acts without taking account of the Council or of other institutions. It lost its sense of proportion, showed contempt towards all those who were outside it, and detached itself more and more from the mass of the combatants and the working population.””
        • “The Makhnovists never developed any serious working class following in the towns they occupied. Even most anarchist supporters of Makhno, including his close collaborator Arshinov, acknowledge this reality.”
        • “A greater source of discontent was that the Makhnovists refused to pay workers wages. In Ekaterinoslav Makhno insisted that the workers accept payment in kind and engage in barter with the peasants. Workers in Olexandrivske also demanded wages and as Malet puts it “were not very keen” on Makhno’s proposals “to restart production under their own control, and establish direct relations with the peasants””

        Oh :/