No I dont agree with that, that there will be a lack of supplies.
I value the comparison I cited over your unevidenced opinion.
Since 95% are peasants these 95% only need to feed themselves and the other 5%, and the other 5% some of which can get it from imports a much smaller % but still.
Why do they choose to sell in the absence of desired consumption goods? Why do they stop home production and replace it with market consumption? They don’t. They reduce labour and engage in substitution handicraft.
And I believe "food output" will increase since people are now working for them selves and their families and not anyone else.
“Your money is no good here.” You’ve provided no basis for market entry.
So no I do not think it will be as in the USSR, also since I am not talking about a communist society.
Neither were the NEP, nor for that matter collectivisation. The first had private land ownership and a free market in grains (dysfunctional but free). The second involved mass enclosure and proletarianisation.
The problem with communist land reform wasnt breaking the landed gentry, that was a net gain. The problem was with collectivization and making thr state the new mega landlord.
No, the problem was generally with first generation proletarianisation of a resistant community. The same brutality happened in England (Hammond & Hammond, Village Labourer).
Land distribution reproduced all the problems of a strong self-possessed peasantry I reliant on the market for subsistence and so unable to be disciplined as labour.
Land distribution worked in Yugoslavia and Vietnam where the village had already been proletarianised by war and salt taxes respectively. Land distribution worked in Hungary where late peasant villages were deeply market integrated.
So obviously, salt taxes.
“Fun” and “interesting” social dislocations result.