See discussion question below from Professor Guinevere Liberty Nell.
Contributed Content (0)
Ask a Question
If it was expropriation of their surplus (and sometimes even of their necessaries), and especially it being wasted, that the peasants were against, not collectivization, might it have been possible to collectivize agriculture without opposition—and if so, would this have resulted in a more efficient system—or, was expropriation inevitable? Explain your answer.
Given that the peasants already felt they had ownership of the land, expropriating the land alone(and thus opposition) would be necessary. Past that, any form of collectivism formed would likely require a different structure of production, and very plausibly some sort of incentive system, which would have alienated the peasants and gone against Soviet ideology. Any system that collectivized and kept the system functioning the same would have caused ongoing opposition.
I think this sums up most of the major issues. It is possible,I would argue, that a group who volunteered to join a collective, and/or over time through an evolutionary process, given sufficient resource abundance, might get past these issues, but otherwise it does seem inevitable.