Windows95
Banned
As a democratic socialist and traitor to everyone here on the thread:
The Soviet Union had farming that was mainly composed of smallholding/subsistence farmers in comparison with the "Kulaks". I think the Kulaks could be taxed to support the cooperatives that the rest of the smallholders could join in with no income. Just learn from how the Danes did develop their farming cooperatives, extending it to meat processing, food cooperatives, butter, milk, credit, etc. There you go, you have a light industry with credit unions nearby to help start a craft or workshop enterprise. The division of labour exists vital for a cooperative based economy, but equity goal is achieved, farmers are attached to their land. There will be more workshops and light industry which I believe is the rule, not the exception in how the East Asian economies developed decades later, and even how Japan developed itself: Japan was an even more precarious position because rice farming is not the same as wheat farming, the terrain is rough, and they used almost the tools as a Russian farmer. Yet, they used a thing called agricultural policy that no one in the high fever, top-down, modernist dream of collectivization and the Green Revolution would listen to. The farmers were never listened to, they did not give information to what the local government asked for, the people at the top top only made up the information on site. They were only treated as objects and nothing else.
In the book, The Theory of Peasant-Cooperation (published in 1919) is against the Marxist-Leninist/Bolshevik/Trotskyist idea of collectivization precisely because agriculture does not precisely work like an industrial plant does: you can extend an industrial plant much per square area and make it more efficient. But an agricultural land is very different: you need more horsepower, plowing animals and more handmade tools and extend the size of your farming area, but you are a smallholder. So collectivization is a no go in a situation where almost the majority of people are smallholders, lack of education, lack of managerial expertise, etc. So all people should be organized into cooperatives (using carrots and sticks), not just as a way for them to achieve livelihood or division of labour, that would still exist under socialism. And it does not exclude the possibility of the 'artel system of collective farming to continue. Nationalization of farmland/socialization of land are the things that do not work. A lot of the peasantry are part of a cooperative, whether consumer, credit union, rural or a cooperative dealing in a specific product. All the cooperatives would eventually emerge or federate, creating a system of cooperative collectivization.
Pick up examples from how the Japanese would make use of the smallholding families without using machinery, but to increase output/smallholder, agricultural extension systems and educating the rural peasant in how seeds worked, what to plant for the greatest yield, how tools worked, etc. It is called agricultural education, and industrialized countries had that. You also need capital inputs, as said by the posters, but specialized agricultural education too.
Eventually, you would get a cooperative, collective ownership of farmland in a decade or two. But without the capitalistic, cooperative development of farming which both benefit the smallholders and the nation as a whole, collectivization is simply impossible. Criticism of top-down socialism is not unique among the right, it existed among the left. Without the prior developments I just cited, Kibbutzim system would've not existed without the development of agriculture, and therefore industrialization. And the capital accumulation does not have to rely on the premise of labour being exploited, family farms can just be able to do such things without wage labour.
Sources:
Harwood, Jonathan. Development policy and history: Lessons from the Green Revolution, 2013, History & Policy
"Seeing Like A State", James C. Scott.
Chayanov, A, Theory of Peasant-Cooperation.
The Soviet Union had farming that was mainly composed of smallholding/subsistence farmers in comparison with the "Kulaks". I think the Kulaks could be taxed to support the cooperatives that the rest of the smallholders could join in with no income. Just learn from how the Danes did develop their farming cooperatives, extending it to meat processing, food cooperatives, butter, milk, credit, etc. There you go, you have a light industry with credit unions nearby to help start a craft or workshop enterprise. The division of labour exists vital for a cooperative based economy, but equity goal is achieved, farmers are attached to their land. There will be more workshops and light industry which I believe is the rule, not the exception in how the East Asian economies developed decades later, and even how Japan developed itself: Japan was an even more precarious position because rice farming is not the same as wheat farming, the terrain is rough, and they used almost the tools as a Russian farmer. Yet, they used a thing called agricultural policy that no one in the high fever, top-down, modernist dream of collectivization and the Green Revolution would listen to. The farmers were never listened to, they did not give information to what the local government asked for, the people at the top top only made up the information on site. They were only treated as objects and nothing else.
In the book, The Theory of Peasant-Cooperation (published in 1919) is against the Marxist-Leninist/Bolshevik/Trotskyist idea of collectivization precisely because agriculture does not precisely work like an industrial plant does: you can extend an industrial plant much per square area and make it more efficient. But an agricultural land is very different: you need more horsepower, plowing animals and more handmade tools and extend the size of your farming area, but you are a smallholder. So collectivization is a no go in a situation where almost the majority of people are smallholders, lack of education, lack of managerial expertise, etc. So all people should be organized into cooperatives (using carrots and sticks), not just as a way for them to achieve livelihood or division of labour, that would still exist under socialism. And it does not exclude the possibility of the 'artel system of collective farming to continue. Nationalization of farmland/socialization of land are the things that do not work. A lot of the peasantry are part of a cooperative, whether consumer, credit union, rural or a cooperative dealing in a specific product. All the cooperatives would eventually emerge or federate, creating a system of cooperative collectivization.
Pick up examples from how the Japanese would make use of the smallholding families without using machinery, but to increase output/smallholder, agricultural extension systems and educating the rural peasant in how seeds worked, what to plant for the greatest yield, how tools worked, etc. It is called agricultural education, and industrialized countries had that. You also need capital inputs, as said by the posters, but specialized agricultural education too.
Eventually, you would get a cooperative, collective ownership of farmland in a decade or two. But without the capitalistic, cooperative development of farming which both benefit the smallholders and the nation as a whole, collectivization is simply impossible. Criticism of top-down socialism is not unique among the right, it existed among the left. Without the prior developments I just cited, Kibbutzim system would've not existed without the development of agriculture, and therefore industrialization. And the capital accumulation does not have to rely on the premise of labour being exploited, family farms can just be able to do such things without wage labour.
Sources:
Harwood, Jonathan. Development policy and history: Lessons from the Green Revolution, 2013, History & Policy
"Seeing Like A State", James C. Scott.
Chayanov, A, Theory of Peasant-Cooperation.
