Talk:Collectivization in the Soviet Union/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Collectivization in the Soviet Union. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I started adding to Sovkhoz and writing kolkhoz, but soon realized that the articles share much. Also, comparison of these forms is required. I suggest to make a single article, Collective farming in the USSR. Also, to avoid confusion, I suggest eiher to rename Collectivisation in the USSR into History of collectivisation in the USSR or to make it into a section of the new article. Any opinions? Please put them into the Talk:Sovkhoz page. Mikkalai 04:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Collectivisation impact

From Talk:Kulak

The collectivization campaign turned Russia from major agricutlural exporter into a country unable to feed itself.

I don't think this isn't true per se, but I do think it could be worded in a much more NPOV 130.157.90.64

Thank you for poining out at this phrase. In fact, it is false. Collectivization per se didn't destroy the productivity of Russian agriculture. (By the way, even in 1913 Russian agriculture was retarded with respect to the rest of the world.) The long chain of disasters: WWI, Russian Revolution, Russian Civil War, aggravated by two droughts (of 1920s and 1930s), did that. If someone wants to discuss the issue further, let's do it at the Talk:Collectivisation in the USSR page. I am copying this dialog there. Mikkalai 01:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is hard to show that collectivization reduced productivity as the control situation of an alternative to collectivization, in Russia, cannot be compared to it. But one might note that problems with food production in China ceased when collectivization was abandoned. Fred Bauder 03:53, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Problems with food production in China became quite serious when collectivisation was abandoned. Even Dazhai, China's most successful commune, did not raise enough grain to feed itself in 1987, four years after it was forcibly disbanded by the government. See William H. Hinton, The Great Reversal: The privatization of China, 1978–1989 (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1990), ISBN 0-85345-794-8. Shorne 22:50, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shock brigades

In an attempt to overcome this resistance, shock brigades were used to coerce reluctant peasants into joining the collective farms between 1929 and 1933.

To assist collectivisation, the Party decided to sent 25,000 "socially conscious" industry workers to the countryside. These workers have become known as twenty-five-thousanders ("dvadtsatipyatitysyachniki").

It happens that the "dvadtsatipyatitysyachniki" movement occurred exactly during the same time frame: 1929-1933. I strongly suspect that the author of the "shock brigades" phrase merely provided his own interpretation of the fact. Unless someone sheds an additional light (i.e., evidence) on the usage of the "shock brigade" buzzword from the U.S. military slang, the sentence is out. Mikkalai 20:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "shock brigade" is POV. Shorne 21:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To Boraczek

Look, I know that this is hard for you to understand, but you have to have facts to be able to change something that is correctly documented and NPOV. You can't just revert it because it doesn't match your astigmatic view of the world. Shorne 09:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

In my opinion, Shorne merely introduces statements taken from communist propaganda without any criticism or distance. If he goes on presenting these statements as facts rather than as opinions, I will consider it an intentional breaking of the NPOV policy, which clearly states that Wikipedia's policy is presenting conflicting views without asserting them. Shorne is welcome to present his opinion on kulaks' activity during the collectivisation as an opinion. Besides, I can see no reason why high estimates should be deleted, as they only provide additional information. Boraczek 09:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reread what I said. You have to contest facts with facts, not with opinions. Shorne 10:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's definition (by "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" - taken from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), you haven't presented any facts. You only presented an opinion, that is to say "a piece of information about which there is some dispute" (taken from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). That's why I feel free to undo your reversion, as it is against the NPOv policy. I'm sorry. Boraczek 10:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that there is absolutely no way to discuss anything with you. It seems that you do not understand anything. Please seek assistance. Shorne 11:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Will someone else kindly accept the herculean task of explaining this to Boraczek? I just don't have the patience. Shorne 12:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, let me encourage you to read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article. Here is an excerpt which explains what you can do so as not to violate NPOV: Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles was the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles was the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. Boraczek 12:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, if you won't discuss your edit war with Boraczek, how about discussing it with me. In the village my family lived in, resistance was nearly universal, but only actual kulaks were shot. Fred Bauder 19:31, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

What do you want me to discuss? Shorne 19:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I still question the neutrality of this article, as Shorne presents data taken from a site of a communist party as undeniable facts. To me, writing an article about collectivisation which is based solely on a book written by a communist seems like writing an article about the Holocaust which is based solely on Hitler's Mein Kampf. This is only one side of the story, and we have reasons to believe that the source is heavily biased. Boraczek 12:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism by Boraczek

Boraczek, pay attention, because this is the last time I'm going to say this: PROVE YOUR POINT WITH FACTS OR SHUT THE HELL UP. Shorne 20:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why are U so nervous? I thought you liked to play Reverti. You do it all the time.

Seriously - this is not my task to prove any vision of history. My task is to protect NPOV in this article. As your changes are based on one tendentious source and exclude any other POV, I need to intervene. I'm sorry. Boraczek 20:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You need to enrol in the nearest kindergarten. That's what you need. Shorne 15:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. BTW I wonder why this section is named "vandalism". Do U have any evidence of my vandalism, or is this name just one of your "facts"? Boraczek 16:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note about death toll

By the way, please note that I bent over backwards to give an anti-Stalinist perspective to this article, within the realm of fact. I even used the highest possible estimate of deaths and the longest period (all the way to 1940), to get a maximum death toll of 750,000. If there's a POV to correct, it's an anti-Stalinist one. Shorne 20:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As this is supposed to be the most generous estimate of the death toll for the entire period from 1930 to 1940, the sentence is still false. And BTW, this is Wikipedia, we don't need to give a single estimate here, we can list as many estimates as we want. So please don't delete other estimates. Boraczek 20:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't get to cite estimates that conflict with the facts that I've already cited. In any case, I did mention Conquest's bullshit propaganda. Shorne 20:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remember that there is a lot of uncertainty about many of these events. With the best possible will people have come up with different numbers. Things went differently in different parts of the country and with different ethnic groups. In some places, for example in the Northern Caucasus, under the leadership of Metal Kalmykov, where persuasion rather than force was used, many of the troubles associated with collectivization were avoided. Kalmykov was shot in 1938. Page 189, The Kremlin's Human Dilemma: Russia After Half a Century of Revolution, Maurice Hindus, Doubleday, (1967). So in your generalizations, almost all need to be qualified. For example, many of the cattle were killed because the food that would have been used to feed them over the winter had been confiscated along with the food that was necessary to feed the family, so of course people butchered their cattle and ate them. To characterize people as evil kulaks in those circumstances is simply unfair. Fred Bauder 21:46, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Even the Encyclopædia Britannica admits that the kulaks killed the cattle as an act of destruction, not for food (although the meat was, of course, eaten). Besides, it is not I who am characterising anyone as an evil kulak; I'm just using the word as it was used. See kulak for a discussion.

Those numbers in the many millions are an absurdity and have been refuted as such. Throughout the Cold War, Conquest proclaimed far and wide that the Soviet archives would corroborate his claims. Easy to say when the archives are closed. Well, one fine morning the archives were opened. And what happened? Conquest's claims were proven to be wrong. His claim of deaths from collectivisation in particular was so grossly exaggerated that his number of people who died in gulags was double the number who were ever sent to gulags! He's no historian, just a propagandist who culls through third-rate sources for anything that will help him weave a tale of "great terror". Shorne 22:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, I note you are removing:

According to "The Collectivization 'Genocide'", in Another View of Stalin, by Ludo Martens on a Progressive Labor Party website the most generous estimate of the death toll for the entire period from 1930 to 1940 is about 750,000. [1]

and replacing it with a blind link.

Please note that I am not removing the link, although I have little or no use for the PLP or Stalin apologetics. I am just crediting and identifying the source. That way the reader can "consider the source". I don't think much of having either a link to an article about the party or even referring to the book, but under NPOV, although a distinctly minority viewpoint, they are a recognized one. What is your objection to including information about the source of the information? Fred Bauder 13:21, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

The link is clearly cited at the bottom of the page. Your addition interrupts the flow of the paragraph and also incorrectly suggests that the total of at most 750,000 comes from Martens. In fact, it comes from me. I added up the highest possible figures from the data cited earlier in the paragraph (see the references) and came up with a bit more than 740,000, which I changed to 750,000 just to be even more generous to the side that drools over high figures for deaths under Stalin.

The fact that the link given is to the Progressive Labor Party's Web site is hardly relevant. That's the only place I know where the English text of this book can be found. The book itself was originally written in French and published in Belgium and is available for purchase (ISBN 2872620818). I'll add a link at the bottom of the page for the benefit of those who read French.

Incidentally, where have you been when people have added the correct and non-obvious information that Conquest was employed as an anti-Soviet propagandist by the British government? People keep deleting this important information. Shorne 16:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looking at that link I find this statement:

"The Soviet term, `liquidation of the kulaks as a class', indicates perfectly clearly that it is the capitalist exploitation organized by the kulaks that is to be eliminated and not the physical liquidation of the kulaks as persons. Playing with the word `liquidation', academic hacks such as Nolte and Conquest claim that the exiled kulaks were `exterminated'."

This is simply false: Kulaks who continued to display strong resistance were shot, the rest were imprisoned. This is a link to a list of those shot from the German villages near Odessa. [2]

Kulaks who carried their destruction and violence too far were indeed shot or imprisoned, as Martens says. Most, however, were either relocated or left right where they were, attached to collectives. Claiming that "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" refers to extermination of the persons themselves, as Conquest does out of ignorance or dishonesty, is simply wrong. "Liquidation" in that context no more means extermination (a word chosen for its emotive value) than "liquidation of a corporation" in a capitalist context means that the officers and accountants get strung up in the parking lot.

As for your list, the class of kulaks had largely been done away with by 1936, so I don't know what that list could be about. My best guess is Nazi activity. Shorne 16:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, all ex-kulaks were rounded up during the Great Purge, convicted of being, guess what? Ex-kulaks and either sentenced or killed. The Germans around Odessa didn't know from Nazi although latter during the German occupation there was some collaboration. Fred Bauder 18:12, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Where do you get this stuff? Shorne 18:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's family history, but what part do you doubt? Fred Bauder 21:10, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Your "family history" covers "all ex-kulaks"? And you consider this "family history" a reliable reference? Shorne 22:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mostly it consists of stories told by people who lived in those times in the villages my family lived in. It can be distorted by personal considerations that don't relate historically, but it is very clear that many people who were considered kulaks where shot in 1937, which by the way is well documented in the historical literature regarding the Great Purge. It is reliable enough, but there is a pitiable whining tone which rather detracts from the dignity of their suffering. After all they fought the regime tooth and nail from 1919 on and should have expected hostility. My great-grandfather by the way emigrated to the US in 1890 so we are talking about distant cousins. [3] Fred Bauder 22:59, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it in an honest way. We're talking about people who were actively resisting the new régime twenty years after it was founded. As you said, they had to expect hostility. So-called communist states aren't the only ones that use force to maintain themselves; all states do. Had the British defeated the US revolutionaries, you can bet that Washington and plenty of his comrades would have received a twenty-one-gun salute—with a cigarette and a blindfold. Shorne 00:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, what does the American War of Independence have to do with killing kulaks? Boraczek 11:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe my paragraph was clear enough. Shorne 12:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Collectivization percentages

The opening paragraph says: "However most observors agree that, in practice, despite isolated successes, collective and sovkhozs were inefficient, the agricultural sector being weak thoughout the history of the Soviet Union with one third of collective farm production being produced on the private plots peasants were allowed."

I don't agree collectives were inefficient. As far as the agricultural sector always being weak with one third of agriculture coming from private production - well for one thing it was not one third, it was less than that. I don't see what case there is that the agricultural sector was weak - more was produced in say 1988 than in 1916, what weakness is meant? Yes, some percentage of a farmers work was on their own private plots - what effect does that have on weakness?

It is a matter of contrast. The very same people were working for the Kolhotz that were working in the private plots, which they worked on only after their day's work was done. At the direction of the leaders of the kolhotz they plowed, planted, harvested in order to carry out the plans developed at the center. They did produce a lot of food, but compared to farms in the West, very little despite the large number of people engaged in agriculture. In the cultivation of their private plots, about an acre per family for most of the history of the Soviet Union they were diligent, skilled and productive. Fred Bauder 11:38, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

We know how the collectives operated. We also know that they were behind the West, for quite a few reasons, a major one being the climatic and geological conditions of the Soviet Union. (It isn't exactly Italy, you know.)

One problem with your citation is that you don't give a date. When did that much of production supposedly come from private sources? In 1990? I'd believe it. (Smuggling and unauthorised use of land would have played a big rôle by then.) In 1940? Hardly.

Another problem is that we're not talking about the same things. The kolkhozy and the sovkhozy produced mostly grain. (Also cotton and certain other crops that require large-scale production.) People didn't plant wheat on private plots; they planted vegetables and raised livestock. Well, livestock eat grain. A lot of it. And guess where the grain came from. So it's not as simple as saying that efficiency did the trick. Sure, that was part of it. But it wasn't the whole story. Shorne 11:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You say it is a matter of contrast. First you say it is a contrast with Western farms which is ridiculous because in 1916 Western farms were far more productive than farms in Russia. Russia started out economically far behind the industrialized countries, which of course, were not standing still either. From this perspective, the only way for Russia to not be perceived as weak is, whatever its material conditions, to reach the same level of US production which of course was ever-increasing. This is a nutty contrast, you might as well demand that if Haiti collectivized its farms, that it produce as much soon after as the US does, if it doesn't it's collective farms are obviously "weak". This is an article about collectivization, not material conditions. Farm productivity increased in Russia over the years. If Russian and American farms were similar in 1916 there would be a basis in comparison, as this is not so, there is no basis in comparison. It's interesting you choose to use the US to the what was pre-revolution pre-industrial Russia. Russia and Brazil make a more apt comparison for many reasons, and the Soviet collectives were certainly more productive than that country, which in 1916 had an economy similar to Russia's.

Furthermore, Russia is in Europe, and one could have made the same case comparing American and European farms. Compared to American farms in say the 1970s, European farms were incredibly inefficient. Does this have to do with collectivization? In fact, collective farms were more efficient than Italian farms in the 1970s (Earl Brubaker, January 1972 - A Sectoral Analysis of Efficiency Under Market and Plan. Soviet Studies).

The other contrast you give is that production on collectives was weak and inefficient compared to private production in Russia. Here again there is no basis of comparison. As Shorn says, grain was the main thing produced on the collectives. In your own examples listed below, what is coming off of the private plots? Over and over again it says - milk, meat and eggs. I think I'm beginning to see where the "miracle" of what your sources say 26% of production coming from 2-3% of "the land" is! Talking about misleading and disingenuous. Ruy Lopez 17:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are making a lot of good points here. I think privately owned cattle were not grazed on private plots, but in common pastures with the rest of the collective farms cattle. There was also concentration on high value crops, although why they grew potatos mystifies me as here in the San Luis Valley it is a mechanized field crop. As to poor land, part of that was due to poor planning at the center which poured resources into farming of marginal land, both in the traditional Russian heartland in the north, but in arid lands to the southeast. But the chernozem or black lands of the Ukraine are equal in native productivity to the land in Iowa. The statistics I now quote in the revised sentence are from 1973, heart of the stagnation period. Fred Bauder 13:52, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, the common pastures that you mentioned—and the communally produced grain that was also used as feed—represent a significant amount of land. Anyone who has been around cattle knows that they need a lot of space. Add that in, and suddenly the "2–3%" of land that was private has to be raised substantially.

Second, the USSR was not like the San Luis Valley. You have to plant what will grow well. That means potatoes in some places, fruit in others.

Third, I'm no agronomist and I don't have appropriate data, so I can't pass judgement on the decision to invest in marginal land. (Are you in a position to do so, other than from an armchair?) I do know that much marginal land was made fertile. What investment did chernozem require, since it was already so rich and productive?

Fourth, selectively quoting from the "heart of the stagnation period" reflects a bias. You're trying to find the worst cases to report on. Shorne 21:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to agree that collectives were inefficient (although, let me note, if you had lived in a collective farm in the Soviet Union, you would certainly agree). You can have your own opinion. But the fact is that most observers think that collective farms in the SU were dramatically inefficient.

Wikipedia is not meant to be a storage of "information Ruy Lopez agrees with" only. It is a place to present different views and opinions (converted into facts by attributing them to someone). This is why I consider your deletion unjustified. Not mentioning that it would be more polite to discuss the matter before deleting instead of making an arbitrary deletion.

If you believe that the percentage was lower than 33%, please cite a source you base your opinion on.

It is natural and quite obvious that the production in 1988 was bigger than the production in 1916, because the technological progress in 1988 was much more advanced. To measure the "weakness" of the agricultural sector in the USSR, you would need to compare it with agricultural sections in other countries. Boraczek 11:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sourcing is good, but I do not accept an authority just saying things are inefficient, and/or weak, you have to say why they are. The one fact I can discern here, that supposedly one third of production was private is wrong, the percentage is lower. Ruy Lopez 03:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See below, where after research a more realistic figure in 1/4 of total soviet production. Keep in mind that the sentence in question is in the introductory paragraph. Detailed information about the problems of Soviet agriculture belong in an article, perhaps Agriculture in the Soviet Union, or in the kolkhoz or Sovkhoz articles or perhaps in Collective farming#Soviet Union. There is some information in Zaslavskyaya's book, especially on page 115 where she writes, "During the stagnation period heavy restrictions were placed on the freedom of all categories of employees, 'tying them down' with hundreds of often contradictory instructions. In fact, it was not just a matter of instructions. I mentioned above that 80 percent of agricultural workers considered that they were not working at full capacity and could work more efficiently. What is stopping them now? The great majority of workers point to the poor organization of production, shortages of essential materials, fuel, seed, animal feed, constant breakdowns of equipment, a lack of spare parts and the resultant lengthy delays for reasons beyond their control. To this they add a poor structure of wages, a conflict of interests between different sections of workers, and a system of incentives that encourages good interim results rather than a good final outcome. In their opinion, if these weaknesses were overcome, they could raise productivity by 30-50 percent." Fred Bauder 14:10, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ruy Lopez. Collective farmers had small private plots and facilities for small-scale raising of farm animals (a few chickens, a pig or two). There's just no way that private production could have been a third of all communal agriculture. Not that much land was private.

You're right that a very small percentage of land was private (I can't remember the exact number now, I'd need to check it). Nonetheless, that small percentage accounted for one third of the total production. This also shows how inefficient collective farms in the SU were. It seems to me that you don't accept any information about reality that is not consistent with your general opinion (which is BTW a definition of "prejudice"), so you'll probably deny it, but these are just statistics. Boraczek 11:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've seen the book, have you, Boraczek? Shorne 11:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What book do you mean? Boraczek 11:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The one that you upheld as giving accurate statistics. Shorne 11:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't refer to any particular book. Those were just official statistics of the SU. They were published in 70s and 80s. And social scientists had access to them. Those statistics were cited in many books. Chances are you can find them in statistical yearbooks of the Soviet Union as well. I don't know if they are accurate, but anyway it's hard to assume that they were "anti-communist propaganda", isn't it? Boraczek 14:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The book I cite regarding the inefficiencies of Collective farming is The Second Socialist Revolution ISBN 025336860X by Tatyana Zaslavskaya, a Soviet Sociologist and agricultural specialist. It is not an especially objective book, being essentially a tract which advocates restructuring of the Soviet economy, perestroika. However, it does have extensive material from one Soviet point of view of the problems presented in the 1980s. A book devoted to agriculture would be better but as Zaslavskaya points out, for most of the history of the Soviet Union objective reporting regarding the problems of agriculture was discouraged. Fred Bauder 14:36, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out its bias. Allow me to note as well that things done in the 1980s were not on Stalin's watch. Shorne 20:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And, as Ruy Lopez said, "weak" has to be defined. Shorne 04:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, good news ; I have looked and looked in the book I am using and can't find the reference to one third of the production being from private plots.

You mean you quoted it just yesterday and now you can't find it anywhere in the book? How could that be? Shorne 20:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We'll have to to look around at some other references if we want that number. To be honest I don't like to work that way. I'd rather incorporate material in Wikipedia when I run across it rather than spend time searching. But here is the result of some searching on the internet:

"But even in Lithuania, one-third of agricultural production came from private plots of land and not from collective or state farms" (Agricultural productivity in Lithuania was higher than in most of the rest of the Soviet Union) [4]

" Critics of communism often point out that these small privately run plots, occupying only 2% of the land, produced 26% of the country's agriculture" [5]

"Although accounting for a small share of cultivated area, private plots produced a substantial share of the country's meat, milk, eggs, and vegetables." [6]

"As the workers revolution was defeated, the peasants were able to force the continuation of private production on the land in retaining private plots for their own use and for commercial exploitation." Just for fun... [7]

"The contribution of private plots to the nation's food supply far exceeded their size. With only 3 percent of total sown area in the 1980s, they produced over a quarter of gross agricultural output, including about 30 percent of meat and milk, 66 percent of potatoes, and 40 percent of fruits, vegetables, and eggs." [8]

Again, "Furthermore, much of this output comes from private plots, which in 1964 accounted for 3% of the area under cultivation but produced more than 40% of the milk and meat output, 60% of the potato crop, and 73% of the egg production." [9]

"The Soviet Union contains some of the most fertile agricultural land in the world. Prior to the communist revolution of 1917 Russia was the world's largest exporter of grain. Collectivization of agriculture during the 1920s and 1930s was quickly followed by dramatic declines in agricultural output. Between five and ten million Russians died of starvation during these years with twelve to thirteen million more saved by food donated from the Western capitalist countries. Today, the Soviet Union employs nearly 25 per cent of its labor force and invests in excess of 25 per cent of its capital in agriculture, both of which are far higher than any other industrialized country. Despite its tremendous agricultural potential, the Soviet Union is now the world's largest food importer. It now imports nearly one-third of its food, and this is despite having grudgingly permitted the establishment of private mini-farms one-half to one acre in size. These private plots comprise only three per cent of the total cropland yet produce 27 per cent of the nation's food. It is unlikely that the Soviet Union could exist without these plots.", Citing 1. See Sven Rydenfelt, A Pattern for Failure (New York: Harcourt, 1983), pp. 27-45; Hedrick Smith, The Russians (New York: Ballantine, 1994), pp. 264-84; and Marshall Goldman, USSR in Crisis (New York: Norton, 1983), pp. 63-87. [10]

Since I have a copy of Hedrick Smith's The Russians, looking at pages 264-284--I find nothing remotely relating to the assertions in the article, but find a chapter, "Rural Life Why They Won't Stay Down on the Farm" running from page 199 to 214. On page 201, "But one unusual article in March 1975, revealed that 27 percent of the total value of Soviet farm output--about $32.5 billion worth a year--comes from private plots that occupy less than one percent of the nation's agricultural lands (about 20 million acres). The article cited is "A Yemelyanov, "The Agrarian Policy of the Party and Structural Advances in Agriculture," Problems of Economics, March 1975, pp. 22-34. The crop figures are computed from those in The Economy of the U.S.S.R. in 1973 (Moscow, 1974), p. 253" Smith goes on to say, also on page 201, "At that rate, private plots are roughly 40 times as effient as land worked collectively. In hard, crop-by-crop terms the 1973 Soviet economic yearbook showed that in terms of value, 62% of the nation's potatos, 32% of other fruits and vegetables, more than 47% of the eggs and 34% of the meat and milk [came from private plots].

So anyway, from a variety of sources the amount of land devoted to private plots was from 1 to 3 percent of the agricultural land. The portion of production, measured in terms of value (not quantity) ranges from 26 to 40 percent. Fred Bauder 13:32, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Key word: value. This is nothing but an accounting construct. What I want to know is the production in terms of kilogrammes. Shorne 20:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"NPOV"

All right, what's the NPOV issue? Say something specific, or I'll remove that tag. Shorne 12:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne and Ruy Lopez, although you have not identified your exact political perspective it seems to be that basically that the policies and viewpoints which prevailed in the Soviet Union before the Khrushchev revelation and reforms were correct. This viewpoint is rejected by almost all scholars even the revisionist historians and by the vast majority of Marxist-Leninists. I don't maintain as some do, notably User:Adam Carr that your viewpoint should be totally suppressed but I do think it needs to be put in perspective as the distinctly minority view it is. When you try to dominate an article like this you are violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and it is proper that a notice to that effect head the article. But more important than a mere notice is the failure, as there must be, to back up your structuring of information in the article with appropriate references. There is some material developed by the revisionist historians which you could use (take a lot of digging though), but in the main you are falling back on material from your own political sect and just plain arguing. I hope you can eventually see that what you are doing in not acceptable and amounts to a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, " Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively on what advocates say, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. Go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views—and good luck." Fred Bauder 14:26, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, please point out the NPOV issue in the article. I mean specific words and sentences. Saying that I have a POV is not enough. Shorne 20:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll point out which specific words and sentences violate the NPOV rule - a bit later. Boraczek 14:46, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Far from defending his claim of POV on my part, Fred Bauder just goes ahead and inserts his own "data" into the article. Everyone can assess for himself Fred Bauder's level of integrity. Shorne 01:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm listing sentences which are not NPOV IMO, and I'm waiting for your reaction.

Many wealthy and middle peasants, notably the kulaks, attempted to sabotage collectivisation

opinion as a fact; please prove that poor peasants didn't fight against collectivisation

I didn't say that none did. Shorne 21:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When you say "many wealthy and middle peasants attempted", you imply that poor peasants didn't attempt. Boraczek 23:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you have any real information on the subject, include it and cite it. Shorne 23:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the exact figures were released by Soviet and foreign scholars

opinion as a fact; please prove that the figures are exact

They came straight from the archives. Check the references if you have any dispute. Shorne 21:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, but what proves that the data from the archives are exact? Boraczek 23:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

None of your games. This could go on forever. I've given valid citations. Shorne 23:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To cite is not to prove. Boraczek 09:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

most of these (deaths) being from natural causes

opinion as a fact; please substantiate

I cited a reference. Shorne 21:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But you didn't write who claimed so. And BTW what do you consider "a natural death"? If those people were left without sufficient amount of food and they died out of hunger or exhaustion, is this a natural death? According to the statistics the death rate was 3.6% per year, which is 2 times more than the highest natural death rates. So not more than a half of these deaths can be explained as "being from natural causes". Boraczek 23:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The information is adequately cited, with a reference. Shorne 23:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The opinion is not attributed to its author. Boraczek 09:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those executed represented only a fraction of the 63,000 kulaks classified as "active counterrevolutionaries"

opinion as a fact; please attribute

I did. Shorne 21:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you didn't. Boraczek 23:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obviously no point in talking with you. Shorne 23:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These data imply that the most generous estimate of the death toll for the entire period from 1930 to 1940 is about 750,000.

486,370 + 389,521 = 875,891; and these data only include those who were sent to the East.

Here's how the calculation was done: all of the 486,370 who died before reaching the labour colonies, even though many of them escaped (and did not die); half of the 389,521 who died between 1932 and 1940 (the article says that most died of natural causes); all of the 63,000 "active counterrevolutionaries, even though many of them were not executed. That gives 744,130, which is 740,000 to two significant digits; but I've gone ahead and raised it to 750,000 out of generosity. (As if the calculations themselves were not generous enough.)

Let me note that you don't include people who were killed and not sent to the East; you don't include people who were sent to prisons and concentration camps; you don't include people who were sent to the East after 1931, but died before they got there. Boraczek 23:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did include all of those. Please learn to read. Shorne 23:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You didn't. Please read your own source carefully. Boraczek 09:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

some observers say that collective farms and sovkhozes were inefficient

whether you like it or not, most observers say so; a tiny minority still believes in efficiency of Soviet collective and state farms

Prove that "most" say so. And why should this matter anyway? The truth is not open to voting. Shorne 21:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course, a tiny minority may be right. But it's not fair to present a tiny minority as if it was a majority. Boraczek 23:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have presented facts. I'm not even talking about minorities and majorities. It is you who are clouding the issue. Shorne 23:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have presented opinions rather than facts. Boraczek 09:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Statistics based on value rather than volume of production give a particularly distorted view of reality

opinion as a fact, and one demonstrably false; please change

I've already demonstrated that it is correct. Shorne 21:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your demonstration was far from being convincing. You only showed what possible reasons of the high percentage of production value coming from private plots are, but you didn't show why statistics based on volume should be better than statistics based on value. Boraczek 23:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Shorne 23:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and you failed to substantiate the statement. Boraczek 09:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Private farming also turns out to be relatively inefficient

opinion as a fact; and wrongly substantiated, because, as Ruy Lopez correctly observed, there are many resources which are used in agriculture - not only labor force, but also land, capital, etc.

I mentioned all of that and gave a reference. Shorne 21:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The quoted statement is not substantiated though. Boraczek 23:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is substantiated. Check the reference. Shorne 23:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reference is not evidence.Boraczek 09:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

such claims tend to discuss only a small number of consumer products and do not take into account the fact that the kolkhozy and sovkhozy produced mainly grain, cotton, flax, forage, seed, and other non-consumer goods with a relatively low value per hectare.

false information; the cited statistics were related to total agricultural output in terms of value

You did not understand. Please read my sentence again until you do. Shorne 21:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boraczek 17:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) the cited statistics were related to total...

False argument: so far we saw a cited quotation from statistics, presented by a biased researcher. It is well known any statistics can be twisted any way, if you don't show full data. By the way, I am wondering how they have found the second number: the value of private output. I don't believe that such "anti-Soviet" numbers were published in Soviet official books. Mikkalai 19:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai is right - we should get to the original statistics. Anyway, the questioned statement is not substantiated. Boraczek 09:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1/4 on 2%

Removed:

with one fourth of of the value of agricultural production in 1973 being produced on the private plots peasants were allowed, only 2% of the arable land

Obviously, either the authors of the cited book don't know the subject or the quotation is out of context. For starters, how "value" is defined? By arbitrary, robbing prices imposed by state on kolkhoses and sovkhoses? Second, please tell me what percentage of agriculture production constitute technical cultures, such as cotton, flax, corn, rye/wheat for feeding livestock? I can ask you a dozen more questions. The topic simply reeks of ignorance in detail. "Richest kulaks had 3 or 4 horses". Sheesh! IMO the recents addtions made without a grain of common sense or critical thinking. Mikkalai 15:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See above Talk:Collectivisation_in_the_USSR#Collectivization_percentages for extended discussion. As to the measure of value, it came from Soviet economic statistics which I presume the amount which was exchanged for the product. Fred Bauder 15:52, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I just flashed on the likely explanation for part of this. Much of the "value" of the goods sold in the private markets, reflects both the inflated prices paid there and, more significantly, massive amounts of food stolen from state shops, by employees, that were diverted to the private markets. Fred Bauder 16:21, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Bingo. Value is a problematic measure of production for various reasons, including the one that you cited (varying prices). The Soviet Union greatly subsidised food, to an even greater extent than a country like the US. (Stalin even pointed out that bread cost less at one point than the flour needed to make it.) Prices for publicly produced foods were lower than those for privately produced ones. Furthermore, small-scale production tends to be of a higher quality, which is part of the reason that lots of people keep a small garden, bake their own bread, or make their own jam when all those things can be bought at the grocery store. (Incidentally, the labour theory of value would say that many of those products do have a greater value, precisely because they require more socially necessary labour.)

For those reasons, the value of privately produced products is high out of proportion to the amount produced.

Believe me, the Soviet economists who reported these figures would have expanded the private sector if these data had indeed proven that smallholders outproduced large-scale communes. Shorne 21:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe you Shorne, Soviet economists did no such thing although you would see if you read The Second Socialist Revolution reforms were in the works, and I think remain in the works in Russia today. The rigidity of the Soviet Union was legendary. Fred Bauder 21:34, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

They didn't make those "reforms" because the evidence did not suggest that the "reforms" were warranted. I'm not going to argue with you anymore; you obviously cannot or will not participate in a rational discussion. Shorne 22:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. The refernce nothe above discussion page talks about three of four products, which correspond to direct consumer goods: potatoes, etc. You cannot attribute these numbers to 'all agriculture. In the same way I can write 98% of all cotton, 70% of all corn, 99% of all flax... were produced at non-private land. Mikkalai 19:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is not to say that this figure dramatically depended on year. You cannot put such out-of-the-blue data in an intro. Mikkalai 19:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. People produced tomatoes and eggs on their private plots, not cotton and flax—and, as I said, not even wheat and barley. I see here a very ignorant view of agriculture as the means of producing the bacon and eggs that you have for breakfast. Again, there are other enormous problems with this single number that supposedly summarises all of Soviet agriculture, such as those that we have already pointed out. Shorne 20:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A direct example of blatant nosense in the sources cited: "30 percent of meat and milk". Was the author aware that in Soviet Union it was forbidden to keep private livestock beyond immediate family needs? From my own childhood I remember the only years we used to eat beef were when the cow brought twins: every year a calf per cow had to be delivered to sovkhoz farm; otherwise you wouldn't receive a plot for hay. (And by the way, the whole hay and grass came from the state/colkhoz land; so much for the 2%.) Mikkalai 21:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And of course this bullshit article doesn't even try to take into an account circumstances in such radically different regions as Baltia, Siberia, Central Russia, Kalmyckia, Ukraine, Caucasus, Uzbekistan, Moldova. A nice average number for all orangs and oranges, a kind of statistics good for propaganda only. Mikkalai 21:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW I am not denying that Soviet agriculture was a disaster.And it deserves a separate, serious article Agriculture in the USSR, with analysis of various factors, such as rural demographics, price scissors, wage inequality, low level of living conditions, bureaucratic management, etc., including timeline display. Mikkalai 21:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Agriculture in the USSR, great minds agree... Fred Bauder 21:30, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, we've established that the statistic quoted is a Soviet government statistic; it is only "out of the blue" if you are unfamiliar with the situation which a person raised in the Soviet Union might well be. Back in the 80s I used to tell people that I knew more about the Soviet Union than any person living there. The sad thing, it was true, because the common people had no access to outside or secret Soviet information and the rulers were being lied to by their underlings. If it was "forbidden" to keep private livestock, explain the information on page 23 of The Second Socialist Revolution ISBN 025336860X Fred Bauder 21:28, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sure, you know so goddam much from your armchair. Leafing through The Black Book of Communism makes you an authority on the Soviet Union. Pffffffft. Shorne 22:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Explanation is simple: the word mis, as in misinformation. I know 100% that in my childhood (time of Khrushchev) people cut away fruit gardens because there was a tax per tree. Is there a line about this in your statistics? I know from personal experience that a commission would walk over dwellings and measure the volume of hay stocked for winter. If you had too much that would mean you have an extra cow, and get ready to meet with "tovarishch prokuror" (comrade Prosecutor). Mikkalai 21:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And by the way, what do you think, was comrade Prosecutor right? Yes he was. If you have four cows, what would your productivity be in kolkhoz? There was a popular Soviet patriotic song: "Everything is kolkhoz's now, everything is mine!" (Vsyo teper kolkhoznoye, vsyo teper moyo!) And very soon it had become a popular slogan of petty thieves. (80% of population were thieves in late Soviet Union. You could not buy a nail or a wooden board; you had to steal it at a construction site.) 21:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fred Bauder here Mikkalai. Who should you believe, some book Fred Bauder has on his bookshelf or your own two eyes? Obviously the former, he knows "more about the Soviet Union than any person living there...the common people had no access to outside or secret Soviet information". Ruy Lopez 22:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've already discussed this in the Collectivization percentages section here somewhat, but the statistics that a quarter of the production was on 2-3% of the land which was privatized does not indicate that the collectives were weak or inefficient. There are more factors than what percentage of the land was used but, what products are being made? How much capital is being used? How much labor is being expended on the products? If you grow wheat on 97% of a field, and I grow cannabis sativa on another 3%, don't be surprised if the 3% has more worth than that grown on the 97%. Nancy Nimitz estimated roughly 40% of labor input went into that 3% of land, while 60% went into the other 97%, making it no surprise that 3% of land yielded commodities with a higher value. Growing potatos is more labor intensive than growing wheat, so it's no surprise that if this was primarily grown on private plots, it was worth more. This says nothing about the weakness or inefficiency of the collectives - in fact, with 40% of the labor input yet only 25% or so of the yield, in terms of labor time, the private famring is what seems inefficient. Ruy Lopez 22:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Private farming is indeed inefficient. Even capitalists know that. That's why they've gone to enormous corporate farms instead of smallholdings. Shit, the British aristocracy had figured that out several hundred years ago. And now, in the twenty-first century, some backward-looking people are glorifying that precious half hectare over the vast unbroken expanses of collective fields.

Incidentally, this also explains the growth in production after the disastrous destruction of the people's communes in China. The communes were carved up into tiny strips of land that could not be farmed efficiently. Production went down. Then the wealthier or more aggressive started snatching up others' land and turning it into big fields again. Production went back up. (Per-capita production is still lower than in the days of the collectives, however.)

I'd also like to address the statement that the Soviet Union devoted far more labour and other resources to agriculture than the industrialised Western countries did. Big deal! First, the Soviet Union started out far, far behind the West. Second, it did catch up dramatically and increase industry over agriculture. Third, much of the reason that the West can get away with little agriculture is that it procures much of its food from the Third World. Shorne 23:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, an exercise in logic cannot substitute for reliable references, nor can unsupported suppositions like, "Third, much of the reason that the West can get away with little agriculture is that it procures much of its food from the Third World". I wish they did import some food from the third world rather than flood the world market with subsidized surplus production. Fred Bauder 01:04, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

You've looked at the data? Where the hell do you think the US gets its coffee: New Hampshire?

And you have the nerve to call me a "POV warrior" when it is you who insist on inserting data that you don't understand and that have been shown not to represent what you claim they do. Shorne 01:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Coffee is a food? There are some specialty foods such as bananas and mangoes that come from the tropics, but it's a strange version of reality that has the US importing staples like wheat, milk, and beef when it's well-known as a leading producer of all these. Stan 09:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The US does import beef from South America and other places. It also imports lots of cattle from Canada, although lately that trade has been disrupted.

Incidentally, the Soviet Union was the world's largest producer of all three of those commodities at the time of its dissolution. Shorne 09:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that the US does not get much of its wheat or milk from Third World countries then? (Canada is a Third World country?) And why does everything you say seem strangely familiar, as if I'd just read it on the plp.org website fifteen minutes ago? Don't you use any other sources? Stan 09:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Statistics based on value rather than volume of production give a particularly distorted view of reality

This is a very strange sentence. Do you intend to build a synthetic measure based on volume of production? Do you want to add litres of milk and litres of grain? To add tons of cotton and litres of feces? To add quintals of low-quality grain and quintals of high-quality grain, which can be worth much more? This seems to be a very strange way of thinking. When we are talking about efficiency, what interests us is how much wealth was produced and what amount of resources was used to produce it. And produced wealth is the value of produced goods. I agree that it is important how value is measured and that it can affect our conclusions. But it seems to me we merely speculate on the matter. Did anyone actually check how value of production was defined in the Soviet statistics? It is possible that the difference in produced value is to some extent due to the difference in prices. What some interlocutors seem to overlook is that the difference in prices documents the exploitation of peasants in collective and state farms (because they would be better off selling their production in a private market instead of giving it as compulsory supply). So if we assumed that the difference in produced value is exclusively caused by the difference in prices, a possible conclusion could be that the exploitation of peasants in the SU was bigger than in any capitalist country.

I agree that the way the production value was measured could have distorted the view of reality. And it needs some further investigation. But if we simply measure the volume of production, the view would probably be much more distorted. Boraczek 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, just as a first pass, total kilogrammes wouldn't be a bad measure. Obviously it would be far too rough. I'm afraid that's how things go, though. You won't find a single percentage that adequately summarises all of Soviet agronomy over seventy-odd years. You need to do a more sophisticated analysis. If you're serious about discovering the truth, that is.

As I have already said, you're not comparing like to like. There's a big difference between feeding a country and providing supplementary food or income for one family, and that difference is represented in the choices made. If I were a Soviet collective farmer with half a hectare at my disposal for private use, would I plant barley, flax, and alfalfa? Hell, no! I'd probably plant an assortment of vegetables and raise some livestock (with grain and hay produced elsewhere). But the collective farms cannot make the same decision. They have to produce a lot of barley and such. You cannot compare them so easily to tiny farms that operate under very different conditions.

The existence of a private market does not prove exploitation. Perhaps some other part of the economy was exploited to subsidise the farmers; you haven't demonstrated that this is not the case. Or perhaps no one was exploited. There may have been exploitation, but you need more information to prove it. Shorne 22:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is about history ONLY

I have found a piece about Soviet agiculture in wikipedia and made it into Agriculture of the Soviet Union. You are welcome to move this shitmixing talk over there. I am done for the topic. Mikkalai 20:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Silly anecdote"

You didn't bother to read the Fordson tractor article and apparently didn't take trouble to visualize the enormous difference between propaganda by speeches about "bright future" and actually seeing an actual tractor to enhance productivity. Fordson in steel spoke to peasants better than thousand speeches in air. I thought you have already noticed the difference between some politicizing editors here and me, who prefers to add facts rather than interpretations from leftist or rightist POVs. Mikkalai 16:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is really silly, is that the current article paints a picture of bolsheviks running countryside with speeches and slogans for bright future, and when it didn't help they started running around with guns. My "silly anecdote" tells you that there was more than words and guns speaking in favor of kolkhozes. Mikkalai 18:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are right that I didn't take the time to look into the matter, and my edit was premature. You have my apologies. Still, you should try to refrain from insulting people gratuitously in your edit comments... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Famine

Allow me to rephrase my comments, which were too abbreviated on the history page. No one denies that there was a famine. The following notions, however, are dubious at best: 1) that millions upon millions of Ukrainians died—strictly fiction cooked up by various Nazi-supporting propagandists and their agents; 2) that information about the famine was suppressed by the government. Shorne 19:37, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(2) It was dismissed by Stalin when Ukrainian Party leaders (e.g., Kosior) asked for reduction of agricultural quotas because of drought. For starters, I suggest you to read the correspondence between Stalin and Kaganovich:

Stalin i Kaganovich. Perepiska. 1931-1936. O. V. Khlevnyuk et al. (eds),(Moscow, 2001)
The Stalin-Kaganovich Correspondence, 1931-1936 (Annals of Communism S.) I. Stalin, Lazar Kaganovich, Oleg V. Khlevnyuk (Editor), Liudmila P. Kosheleva (Editor), E.A. Rees (Editor), Larisa A. Rogovaya (Editor), R.W. Davies (Editor), Steven Shabad (Translator) Yale University Press. ISBN 0300093675

His dismissal of the request does not amount to suppression of information about the famine. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Reduce the quotas, and there would have been famine in the cities. He maintained the quotas, and there was famine in part of the countryside. The real villains were those kulaks who caused the famine in the first place by slaughtering cattle, burning crops, and engaging in other destructive activity. If some of them died of famine, I say they got what they deserved. Shorne 20:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for slaughtering cattle this was exactly vice versa: there was no forage for cattle, and it was slaughtered, both for food and for not to waste. Famine was caused by draught, which has been befalling Russia once in 11-12 years for hundreds of years. Read the blooming geography and history before writing nonsense. Mikkalai 21:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are probably right about the problem with quotas, but this doesn't dismiss the fact that unlike the previous drought, the country knew little about famine countryside. And the blockade there was for good. I only need to find documents, just you wait. Mikkalai 22:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will continue this discussion when you have learnt to keep a civil tongue in your mouth. Shorne 22:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the record, Mikkalai originally wrote "fucking" instead of "blooming". Shorne 10:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And I will probably no longer duscuss anything with you. Unlike many of us, during our discussions you have learned nothing. Thank you for being pain in the lower backbone that made many of us dig better in the original documents. A have already admitted elsewhere that this is your useful contribution and for sole this reason I refused to take part in conflict resolution against you. But still you need to read more blooming books and refresh your opinions once in a while. Mikkalai 22:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This supposed famine was missed by the entire world press, including the New York Times, which, when Joseph Goebbels claimed a Ukranian famine, said it had not happened. Aside from Goebbels, the idea a famine happened did not exist until the beginning of the Cold War, when historians and propagandists began reviving Goebbels claims. This idea of a Ukranian famine is a joke. At least the claims of problems in China during the Great Leap Forward has a basis - they did have problems, although they have been exaggerated. The Ukranian Famine on the other hand is mostly invention. My "sources" are the world press which, with the exception of Goebbels underlings, denied a famine ever happened, including the New York Times. In fact, the New York Times won the Pulitzer prize in the early 1930s for its reporting on the Five Year Plan. Ruy Lopez 23:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the extent of the "famine" was largely confined to the kulaks who refused to sow their fields or who destroyed crops, livestock, and other property. Evidently these people were banking on getting fed by the government. Well, tough. People who contribute nothing to society, who even impede food production by wasting the best land in the country and destroying food on a large scale, will be the last to get a seat at the dinner table. Paraphrasing II Thessalonians iii.10, Lenin said "He who does not work, neither shall he eat". I see nothing wrong with that.

Tottle's book, which I cited in the article, quotes the Western press extensively to show the evolution of this tale about a famine in the Ukraine. It corroborates Ruy Lopez's statements: originally an outright lie cooked up in the papers of Nazi William Randolph Hearst with the assistance of a handful of seedy characters (including an escaped convict who later admitted in court that he had never been to the Ukraine and that his photos of starving people were from other times and places), it was originally denied by the mainstream press as a piece of Nazi fiction. Only later did they find it convenient to embrace the tale spun by these Nazis and the latter-day "scholars" like Conquest who lent a veneer of academic credibility to their reports. Shorne 10:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez removed these sentences:

"In 1998 the fourth Saturday of each November was set aside as [[National Day of Remembrance of Famine Victims]] in the Ukraine. The [[Famine monument]] on [[Mykhailivskyi Square]] in [[Kiev]] commemorates the victims of the Great Famine."

Please note the references. This is simply a report of the modern Ukrainian point of view. The thing is that not only in the Ukraine but throughout the region affected by collectivization there were millions of witnesses, some of them still living, who saw children, the elderly and others die. They didn't control newspapers but thousands of them eventually told their stories. Fred Bauder 00:22, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Using comments as references

I have restored the comments which contain references. I believe they are important with respect to disputed facts, which is almost every word in the current athmosphere which prevails in this article. References in comments is the method I prefer but we could try footnotes with references at the foot of the article or on a reference page, see Wikipedia:References and Wikipedia:Cite sources, and also, perhaps, Wikipedia:Footnotes. I find the proposed system extremely awkward. There is ongoing work in this area at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. Fred Bauder 12:54, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

The suggestion that the facts are "in history" and thus accessible is not practical as it can be very time consuming to locate any particular reference. By including them in the article editors can, while editing the article, access the information that was used to support an assertion and judge for themselves the context and applicability of the reference. This is especially important with The Black Book of Communism which incorporates numerous references within itself and varies in quality. However, the portion written by Werth on the Soviet Union is generally considered reliable. Fred Bauder 12:54, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Generally considered reliable by whom? Shorne 13:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the current article, bold assertions are often made essentially without reference or using a reference from a biased or misinformed source, for example, "The Ukranian Famine on the other hand is mostly invention. My "sources" are the world press which, with the exception of Goebbels underlings, denied a famine ever happened, including the New York Times. In fact, the New York Times won the Pulitzer prize in the early 1930s for its reporting on the Five Year Plan." above. That the New York Times was hoodwinked is part of the story alright but using the articles they published in 1932 and 1933 as references for our encyclopedia article written in 2004 falls of its own absurdity. Fred Bauder 12:54, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

First, Ruy Lopez said that on the talk page, not in the article. Second, your claim "[t]hat the New York Times was hoodwinked" is itself a bold assertion with no reference. Third, you haven't shown what is absurd about quoting their articles from the 1930s. Shorne 13:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You could start with the fact that even the Pulitzer Committee itself recently stated:

"Mr. Duranty's 1931 work, measured by today's standards for foreign reporting, falls seriously short." (Pulitzer Statement quoted in the Ukrainian Weekly).

If that's insufficient, how about the NYT itself, which displays this notice with Duranty's 1932 Pulitzer:

"Other writers in the Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage" (AP Story).

You can't see what's absurd about quoting 70-year-old reports as fact when the Pulitzer Committee heavily qualifies a decision to let the award stand and even the publishing organization itself disavows their credibility? Horbal 09:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From the statement of the Pulitzer committee after considering revocation of the award:

"The famine of 1932-1933 was horrific and has not received the international attention it deserves. By its decision, the Board in no way wishes to diminish the gravity of that loss. The Board extends its sympathy to Ukrainians and others in the United States and throughout the world who still mourn the suffering and deaths brought on by Josef Stalin." (Pulitzer Statement quoted in the Ukrainian Weekly) Fred Bauder 12:54, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

From the AP story on Ohio.com:

"Duranty covered the Soviet Union for the Times from 1922 to 1941, earning acclaim for an exclusive 1929 interview with Stalin. (AP Story)

But Duranty was eventually exposed for reporting the Communist line rather than the facts. According to the 1990 book "Stalin's Apologist," Duranty knew of the famine but ignored the atrocities to preserve his access to Stalin." (AP Story)

and

"Gissler pointed out that most of the complaints related to Duranty's coverage of the forced famine, which began in 1932. Although the foreign correspondent won the Pulitzer that year, it was for stories he had written a year earlier." (AP Story)

Sally J. Taylor, Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty : The New York Times Man in Moscow, Oxford University Press (1990), hardcover, ISBN 0195057007

I have restored the references to the casualties section and will continue to restore them indefinitely as I will restore anyone else's references. Information and its reference need to be readily referenced in order to edit an article. Any system which separates them makes adequate checking and verification of information much more difficult. There is a great deal of information in this article which is not referenced. My suggestion is that it all should be referenced as should all information in Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 14:24, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I know it makes it difficult for those who do not use references or respect them to edit the article, simply adding and deleting information according to how they make you feel, but that is part of the discipline of fact-based writing, encyclopedic writing, a standard that may reasonably be expected here. Wikipedia articles are not vehicles for advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Fred Bauder 14:24, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

A paragraph that needs work

However, these totals are a subject of intense controversy and dispute. In 1990, when Soviet archives were opened to outside scholars, the following figures were released by Soviet and foreign scholars, such as Nicolas Werth. Of the 1,803,392 persons relocated, 1,317,022 reached the labour colonies; the remaining 486,370 either died (mostly from epidemics, poor sanitary conditions, or the failure of local officials to comply with state policy) or escaped. Deaths between 1932 and the end of 1940 totalled 389,521, most of these being from natural causes. Those executed represented only a fraction of the 63,000 kulaks classified as "active counterrevolutionaries". [11] [12] These data imply that the most generous estimate of the death toll for the entire period from 1930 to 1940 is about 750,000. [13]

I do not advocate removal of the above material. But ambiguities need to be removed and proper attribution of these views made. For example, Nicolas Werth, a respectable scholar seems from the language to have "released the following figures"; he is quoted in the book the links are to, but the figures are not from him. Also links, as opposed to references make this particular reference stand out disporportiately without idenifying the nature or name of the book or the website it is on. Also the phasing is confusing. Fred Bauder 13:02, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

While I believe the information in the paragraph is false and would have a great deal of trouble revising it myself, it is Wikipedia policy that all significant points of view should be included in an article. One question is how is the point of view which this minimization of casualties represents. I would say Stalinist apologists and historical revisionists, but rather than me so characterizing the view point I suggest those who would include this material try to characterize their own point of view. Fred Bauder 14:17, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Fred that the paragraph in question is particularly objectionable for at least four reasons:

It assumes that Soviet archives are a reliable source for information about a genocide perpetrated by Soviet leaders. Furthermore, as Fred pointed out, what is Werth's role? Is the data his or is he merely repeating official Soviet numbers? If it's the latter, why mention him at all?
It says nothing about the fate of the 1.3 million people sent to forced labour camps, only that they arrived at the colonies:
"Here is what some eyewitnesses wrote about their experiences: 'Barefooted and poorly clad peasants were jammed into railroad cars and transported to the regions of Murmansk and the like. Peasants were unloaded into snow about two metres deep. The frost stood at 75 degrees below zero. Without even an axe or a saw we began building huts from tree branches. In two weeks all the children, the sick and the elderly had frozen to death.'" ArtUkraine.com
Other accounts put the survival rate of forced labourers below 50% in their first winter. Such a number would more than double the deaths accounted for in the paragraph.
The statistics defy logic. Only 400,000 people died, of any cause, over 8 years in a country of approximately 30 million? Even if you rely on the official Soviet numbers (I wouldn't), there is still a large discrepancy:
"We do know that according to the 1926 Soviet population census there were 31.2 million Ukrainians in the U.S.S.R. According to the 1939 Soviet census this number had dropped by 3.1 million to 28.1 million. (There was no emigration from the Soviet Ukraine in this period.) Over a 13-year period, according to Soviet statistics, the number of Ukrainians had diminished by 11 per cent. The population of the U.S.S.R., on the other hand, increased by 16 per cent and the number of Russians by 28 per cent." ArtUkraine.com
Finally, virtually no mention is made of the people who died as a result of harsh enforcement of unrealistic harvest quotas (i.e., starved to death). The paragraph implies that only rich kulaks were punished and dismisses the widespread suffering of the entire rural population as "failure of local officials to comply with state policy".

I also think it's more than a little disingenuous to exclusively cite one work, written with what appears to be a very clear pro-Stalin bias, as though it were the most authoritative source of facts and figures. Horbal 19:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Website that might prove useful

20th century deaths. Another, with some personal stories [14]. Fred Bauder 15:59, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Zbignlew Brzezinski quote

I did not put the Zbignlew Brzezinski estimate in and cannot find it easily on the internet. It is superflous and may be removed, in my opinion, without harm. However, it is hardly the only asserted fact which is not referenced. A great deal more work needs to be done along that line with respect to this article and other Wikipedia articles. Fred Bauder 16:03, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Brzezinski didn't do original research on the topic. Therefore Brzezinski's quote is irrelevant and must be removed. I could have added here quite a few anti-Soviet qoutes by various politicialns from the times of Cold War with even more "interesting" "facts". Mikkalai 16:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and protection

I'm going to request protection for this page. I have given up faith that VeryVerily is willing to work things out on this or any page long ago. Coming to a consensus with him edit warring here is impossible. Ruy Lopez 19:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez, Your problem is not with VeryVerily who, without my request, is simply backing me up on general principles. It is with me. Could you please discuss the basis for your edits. Fred Bauder 23:29, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

within the last 24 hours, VeryVerily has reverted this page a total of 6 times. Is this what you mean by backing you up, breaking the three revert rule - on "general principles"? Within the last 24 hours I have editted this page twice. I don't break Wikipedia rules to get my way, unlike your backup. Of course, VeryVerily, who has been banned before for breaking this very same rule, is currently in arbitration for his flagrant disregard of Wikipedia rules. Well, no need to go into all of that, but while VeryVerily is breaking the three revert rule on this page, you are incorrect - my problem very much is with him. Ruy Lopez 07:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's deletion

Fred Bauder, you cannot just delete whole passages of text because you think that someone else should revise them. If you have a small disagreement about the phrasing, propose something else.

Furthermore, it was entirely irresponsible of you to revert a whole batch of changes by Ruy Lopez indiscriminately. I have restored the material. Please discuss any disagreements here before making changes. Shorne 21:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You do not want me to edit that material. I can only present it as false information. It is up to you to get it into shape suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. For example, where do the numbers come from; what do they mean; and who advances them? Fred Bauder 23:34, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This is childish. The material is amply cited and clearly explained. It was there for days and days, with your knowledge, before you came along and deleted it—dishonestly calling it "false information" when you yourself acknowledged that it belongs here. As to not wanting you to edit the material, I told you to edit it rather than deleting it. N.B.: That doesn't mean that any haphazard editing that you do will be acceptable. So don't write a POV screed and then come back later saying that I approved it. Shorne 23:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh the irony - "you cannot just delete whole passages of text because you think that someone else should revise them". That is just hilarious - happy to exploit the weaknesses of the system when pushing your POV, then whining when it's done to you. Stan 04:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you'll open your eyes, you'll see that there's a big difference between deleting extensively cited factual material and removing one-sided POV opinion pieces. Shorne 16:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, we must carefully preserve every link to the crude slanders on plp.org, while deleting material from actual scholars because it doesn't agree with some pseudonymous person's POV. Stan 16:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

I inserted totallydisputed template in the article. Quick check on my printed encyclopedia shows major differences in reasons for collectivisation it's results and implementation. Przepla 23:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Explain. Everyking 00:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Otherwise be reverted. Potentially every artcile contents may be imprecise. If you know the problem, fix it or point to it. On web you may find polarized opinions on any subject. It is not the reason to litter articles with labels. Mikkalai 01:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I intended to correct it during weekend. I apologize for not explaing properly. Basically, my encyclopedia states that main reasons for collectivisation was:

-liquidation of private property,

-puting agricultural production under state control,

-moving workforce from agricultural into heavy industry.

Nothing is being said about increased production.

Moreover, my encyclopedia uses the word terror in describing the politics during collectivisation, estimates death toll for over 14.5 millions humans, lowering level of life over 40%. Production was restored to pre-collectivisation level in the end of 50s. Collectivisation was the reason for food rationing. My encyclopeadia states that kulaks, didn't sabotage anything, they just protects themselves from starvation.

My source is Nowa Encyklopedia Popularna PWN from 1995-1998. Online version is available at [15]; it is however in Polish.

In short, there are many differences between what I read there and here, thus I inserted factual dispute disclaimer. Przepla 11:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Private property - You hit the nail.
state control - mentioned
heavy industry - nonsense; how kolkhozes can move workforce to industry?
increased production - you hit your finger. Of course it was the goal.
terror - the article says about this, although without high emotions.
death toll: even anti-kommunist Brzezinsky (a Pole, btw) tallies to 7 mln. Your 15 is fantasy.
"restored by end of 50s to precoll". Wrong. Pre-coll level was low. There was grain shortage. There was terrible famine of 1921-1923. (before coll) Usually the comparison is with 1913. BTW, hid you happen to notice there was ww2 between 30s & 50s? So this "fact" is a hit below the waist, if presented without mentioning ww2.
kulaks. They did protect themselves and they did sabotage, to protect themselves.

Mikkalai 22:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

changes

- using the word alienation, especially with all the Marxian connotations can lead to confusion to the point where it almost seems intentional. I have removed the word.

- another flag word is productivity and the many connotations of it. One sentence is: "Despite the initial plans and expectations, collectivisation, accompanied by the bad harvest of 1932–1933, led to a drop in farming productivity, which did not regain the NEP level until 1940." Productivity can mean so many things, what specifically is meant here. I'm quite sure I could show (some aspect of) productivity went up in this time frame. Please be more specific.

- removed some POV adjectives whom I assume from the style (although I didn't look) were probably written by Fred Bauder. "Just the facts, ma'am". Ruy Lopez 09:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Casualties

- OK the other sections are mostly acceptable, this is the section where most of the disagreements are in. I find this section ridiculously slanted. While this supposed famine was happening, no one in the world, not the British press, not the American press, no one saw it happening. Well actually Goebbels claimed there was a famine, but the Western press denied it was true, from New York Times reporter Walter Duranty on down the line. When the Cold War started, some anti-communists dug up Goebbels old charges and published them as fact. Anyhow, this will probably go back and forth but I have a problem with large sections of the casualties section.

Rehabilitating the Nazis, that's what it is. Goebbels, Hearst, and some other Nazis manufactured these lies, then suddenly (lo and behold!) they became the truth in the 1950s. Shorne 09:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- I should point out I left things such as "Many estimates of the death toll of collectivisation include those who died in the resulting famine, 6 million according to Nicolas Werth, 7 million according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, not including those who died in labor camps." Well I find the introducing clause as probably POV but it is a fact that Werth said this, Brzezinski said that and so forth. I would have a problem with the article saying as a fact that 6-7 million died, but I have no problem saying Werth/Brzezinski said so. The former is disputed, the latter is fact, they did say that, whether they are right or not. Ruy Lopez 09:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't buy the claim by Brzezinski. Did he do any research? No, he was just aping something that someone else said. We might as well cite our next-door neighbours if we're going to use sources like Brzezinski. (And need I point out that no citation is given?) The one by Werth is OK, with a reference—and with the more scientific discussion that I and others provided. Shorne 09:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Old talk

There have been a lot of recent entries in the Casualties section (by a new user, if I was VeryVerily I would be accusing him of being a sockpuppet of Fred Bauder already).

I added some stuff about the Ukrainies current political climate. Anyone reading the Main Page is aware that Ukraine is bitterly divided between pro-Russian and pro-Western leaders, and that only one party plays up these memorials, which even your own citations say few attend, bears mentioning.

The drought and typhoid epidemic should be mentioned.

And so forth. I know a lot of Ukrainians - most of them talk about the Nazis coming into their villages and shooting everyone, including children, they didn't worry much about a bad harvest during the same period of time the US had its own dust bowl, with sheriffs throwing families off their farms. Ruy Lopez 06:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Once again, the Ruymaster's last sentence proves that he is the master of analogies. Tard. Trey Stone 04:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dust Bowl = Great Famine. Next thing ya know Ruy will be comparing the great purges to the McCarthy trials. Oh wait -- he's probably already done that. J. Parker Stone 01:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will assume I am the new user Ruy is referring to. Rest assured, I am not made of wool and my eyes are not sewn on. Furthermore, I don't know Fred Bauder and have never communicated with him outside of this article's discussion's page.

As for this entry, I came across it one day and was so surprised at what I read that it spurred me to join Wikipedia and provide my own input. Presumably that's the point of a Wiki? I'm here to do two things: 1) ensure that a neutral POV is presented and 2) hopefully make this entry readable by mere mortals.

IMHO, this entry has become an ideological battleground with neither side showing much interest in maintaining a neutral POV, much less presenting the opposition's viewpoints. When I edited the Casualties section the other day, it was to distill a rambling, incoherent mess into something that presented factual information succinctly. I did not remove contrasting viewpoints, rather I trimmed irrelevant material and identified the sources of all the claims in order to let the reader draw her own conclusions.

Regarding the most recent additions about the current political climate in Ukraine, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The events under discussion in this article ("Collectivisation in the USSR") occurred 70 years ago. I don't think a discussion of current political events is appropriate or even relevant to the article. Why is it necessary? That's a rhetorical question. I know why it's necessary but it's not appropriate if your goal is a neutral POV.

I'm glad you know a lot of Ukrainians, Ruy. Is it safe to assume they're now living in the United States? If so, there are probably some very simple explanations as to why they don't discuss the 1930s famine. But that would require going off on yet another tangent.

Anyways, I hope we can do without the antagonism I saw prior to this page being protected. This is a very important topic and it deserves a well-researched, unbiased Wikipedia entry. Horbal 09:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what events 70 years after the fact have to do with anything, but someone felt they had to add comments on events in 1998 so I spoke about the political issues regarding this. You will have to ask the person who originally thought what happened 70 years afterward was relevant. Everyking apparently thought part of it was irrelevant but kept the anti-communist feelings from 70 years later, so I removed all of it. I don't care if it is the 70 years thing is in or not, but if someone wants to discuss perceptions of this 70 years after the fact, let it be discussed, we're not restricted to discussing only negative perceptions 70 years after the fact. Ruy Lopez 18:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also noticed your disdain for discussing events 70 years after the fact didn't prevent you from noting that the New York Times current management is distancing itself from Walter Duranty's reporting on these events 70 years ago. Ruy Lopez 18:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I support the removal of the "1998 declaration" passage. If the page is to remain on topic, we need to keep it focussed on what happened in the 30s. Let's state what happened to the best of our abilities given the passage of time and keep it at that. Holodomor memorials would be better discussed on a dedicated page, IMHO.

As for Duranty, I feel it's tremendously irresponsible to rely upon the authority of the New York Times in covering these events and not point out the facts that later came to light about their coverage. It's one thing to inject modern day political views into events that transpired a long time ago. It is _quite_ another to reveal a sham for what it is. Horbal 21:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article is an utter disgrace, and if I ever return to editing modern history articles, this will be one of the first I will rewrite. Adam 22:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bias

Definately lots of bias here, but who has the time to fix it... Mir 05:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I made lots of edits to this removing what looked biased to me. Because there are lots of small edits, please dont revert everything, but bring up the section that doesn't seem right to the talk page. The passage that some may find contraversial is the Soviet govn't cutting off supplies to areas/ppl who resisted collectivization. I dont know if there is a way to prove this beyond doubt, but there are certainly sources out there that support this. However, if there is a problem with the way it is worded, I would accept "It is believed that the Soviet government cut off supplieds to kulaks and areas that resisted collectivization", or something in that respect. Also, maybe someone can clarify this for me but weren't farmers self sufficient enough that cutting off supplies to them wouldn't lead to famine. Or was the government responsible with not providing them with relief of the famine, after the livestock and grain has been confiscated/destroyed. Mir 17:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: You are correct the farmers (especially kulaks) were self-sufficient to survive a famine; however, confiscation of livestock and grain forced the famine; I think that had next year's grain was not confiscated the famine would not have been as severe (perhaps a few million less).

--Wiki User

Use of word kulak

There are a lot of references to kulaks in this article. From what I know, the term was prejorative. Maybe we should use "rich peasants" instead of "kulaks". After all isn't the word kulak comparable to word nigger in its context. Mir 05:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does that mean we can change Khmer Rouge, Shining Path, Viet Cong, partial birth abortion, free market and so on?

Never mind. I think the word kulak should be mentioned once or twice, but beyond that rich peasant is fine. Ruy Lopez 07:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kulak is historically accurate as the language used by Communist cadre included "poor peasant", "middle peasant", "rich peasant" and "kulak". There were different consequences for rich peasants from those for those classified as kulaks. Fred Bauder 11:32, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure you are correct about "rich peasants". It's probably an incorrect translation of zazhytochny which means "well to do", not "rich". I think bogaty (rich) was synomymous with "kulak" and "miroyed" (the eater of a community). --Gene s

I'm looking for the Russian words, (I'm sorry, but no cyrillic on this computer), I have found "serednyak", middle-income peasant. I havn't found a word for rich peasant other than kulak, so you may be correct. Fred Bauder 14:20, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think, it goes like bednyak (poor) - serednyak (middle)- kulak (rich). At least initially kulak was not a pejorative term. It was meant as someone economically strong, solid. Miroed was a pejorative term for rich peasants. --Gene s 15:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The USSR goal was equal status for all peasants so I dont see why they would make the distinction between rich peasants and kulaks, if there it is possible to make a distinction. 139.142.189.66 20:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kulak means rich peasant, though its direct translation from russian means "tight fisted one", i believe this term was originally used during the requisitioning of war communism, when the rich peasants refused to give up their grain and were somewhat 'tight fisted'. 00:04, 6 Jan 2005

As far as I knew, the term Kulak / Khulak evolved from describing a rich class of peasant, and became a term the government of the USSR used to brand those it decided to select out as enemies of the state as part of their policy of inciting class warfare to deflect anger at the relative failure of collectivisation from themselves.

Not all those branded Kulaks were actually rich, whilst not all rich peasants were called Kulaks.

I don't know how to define the precise true meaning of Kulak, but it should either be used in the capacity of its true and original meaning, or of how the term was used as a brand, not both. This should be defined in the article.

The term 'kulak' is offensive to nobody because the distinction of a kulak from any other peasant was not significant. Whatever the orginial Russian meaning of the word, it was used to describe Stalin's scapegoats... that is any peasant which had the even the samllest potential to incite the envy of other peasants. Stalin ordered "the liquidation of kulaks as a class" in his Leninist drive for "class struggle". Thus he was able to mobilise the proletariat and some peasants themselves in assisting with grain requisition by brutal force, by cultivating the image of greedy "class enemy" lurking in the countryside.

This is nonsense, especially for this: "is offensive to nobody because the distinction of a kulak from any other peasant was not significant". It was significant. First, there were poors with very few property, second, after "raskulachivanie" (dispossession), "kulak" became a stamp on those people. Nobody uses nazi's terms for the oppressed nations. Nobody uses the term "vrag naroda" (people's enemy) without quotes, no normal person would call so anybody sentenced with this statement. The same for "kulak". Ъыь 08:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Kulaks were quite simply the term used by the government to denote the group of people it used as a scapegoat for its problems. Often times this happened to be the richer peasants, as they were an easy group of people to target to please the lowest classes. However, this was not only not always the case, but by virtue of this definition, the use of "rich peasants" as a replacement for the term "kulak" is a misnomer. The two terms are clearly not interchangeable. GWing02 7 Nov 2005

I think that earlier, under the Russian Empire, the term may have been more innocent. But during the 1932–33 famine, local officials were put under intense pressure to find kulaks, and given complete discretion to identify them. The results were predictable. —Michael Z. 2005-11-8 06:34 Z

The word 'kulak' without quotation marks or without the added 'so-called' is little more than hate-language. It should not be used as if it described something that actually has a resemblance to reality. The word was used by the Bolsheviks to de-humanize their political opponents, similar to the term 'rootless cosmopolitan', though the latter was a purely Bolshevik invention. Dietwald 09:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker and can't agree more. From my reading experience, the word is used as a negative label, and the victims or their relatives never do use it, neither the historic reports. Pre-perestroika history textbooks for 5-th grade do use it, but that's ugly. Ъыь 06:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that anyone currently being taught History (at least in England) is highly likely to have been taught to use 'kulak'. Additionally, I think you will find kulak defined in English as "kulak noun, historical a wealthy, property-owning Russian peasant." by Chambers Dictionary, so surely: a) It is fine to use the word kulak in English since it is not derogatory by definition. or b) The dictionary definition should be changed to reflect the outcome of this discussion.

At the time in Russia, it was hard to define actually what a kulak was. Officials who enforced the law were unsure of the correct definition and so rounded up any people who were there at the time. How can we, with hindsight, discuss the exact definition of the term 'kulak' if the people who were there did not know themselves?

Generally speaking, a kulak is someone who uses hired labour, thus "exploiting" those labourers by taking some of the income they produce. However, there were other definitions as well. With respect, Ko Soi IX 10:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To go back to the original point, the problem with using rich peasant is that kulaks often were not very rich in an objective sense, only in a relative sense. Someone who farms 60 acres, owns two cows and a team of horses is not rich. Calling them rich peasants distorts the meaning of the text. Therefore, the meaning of kulak in the soviet context of the time should be explained and "kulak" used. Many who oppose the rich would not consider a small holder with a team of horses and two cows farming 60 acres rich, simply because he hired a helper even poorer than himself. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

revisions by Ruy Lopez

Your other edits are reasonable but can you explain why you made these changes:

1. liquidation of private property of land. changed to: transfer of the land from kulaks to peasants.

I favor the first version because the land wasnt realy transfered to peasants, it was transfered to the state (or am I wrong). Furthermore, land was taken from everyone who had land, not just kulaks and again transfered to the state.

liquidation of private property of land doesn't sound like a phrase from someone who uses English as their primary language. The important thing is that private property did not cease to exist - peasants shoes weren't owned by the state, so why mention private property of all? "Ownership of land, the majority of which was in the hands of rich peasants, was transfered to the state" is fine.

Private ownership of land specifically did cease. I dont know if its right to say kulaks had the majority of land, anyone have any stats on this? If they had more than 50% then i'd agree with "Ownership of land, the majority of which was in the hands of rich peasants, was transfered to the state". Also, while theoretically land was supposed to go to the peasants in reallity it went to the state Mir 23:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2. Removal of link to canadian resolution. I put this link because it affirms the validity of the paragraph instead of something the Ukrainian historians made up. Are you disputing that the soviet government took those actions? 139.142.189.66 21:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind if the resolution is there but it belongs at the end of the article, if at all. The Canadian government deciding what happened in the Ukraine 70 years after the fact is - politically motivated, far removed from the fact and in many ways irrelevant. Ruy Lopez 21:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is your argument for it being politically motivated. It is as biased as anything Stalin did, and his quotes are included in the article. Also, you removed it from that section without putting it at the end. Mir 23:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

During the revolution, the peasants seized the land, but the state had nationalized it by decree. See THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF LAND SOCIALIZATION. So no one owned land, but there was an existing right to use it. It was that use which was extinquished, not a true property right, however the language used to describe collectivization customarily describes the situation in terms of property. Also, most land was owned by poor and middle peasants, kulaks owned more than the average, but only a small fraction of the total. Fred Bauder 22:02, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

"During the revolution, the peasants seized the land," so who owned the land before the revolution? I know a large part of it was owned by large land owners, but certainly not all of it. I find it hard to imagine that every single hectare of land was "seized" by a different owner after the revolution, thereby making Stalin's collectivizations a just and fair enforcement of the legal status quo. I'm quite sure that at least some of the land persisted in the hands of the same owner from circa 1900 up until Stalin's collectivization program. 130.71.96.19 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Ruy Lopez removed statements that the collectivization had been forced. I'm bringing this information back, at least until Ruy reveals his rationale. Boraczek 09:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Drought

I have been able to find evidence for a drought in 1931 (by searching online at Amazon in Years of Hunger, ISBN 0333311078, but not during the period of greatest impact of the famine, early 1933, following the harvest of 1932. Could those of you who feel drought played a significant role in the famine, please clarify the situation? Also, while there is some mention of both typhus and typhoid affecting people weakened by starvation, there does not seem to be any evidence of this as an independent factor. Fred Bauder 15:10, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see someone look into this a bit more. This article seems to occasionally be edited with assertions that a large portion, or even the majority, of the deaths were due to drought conditions. I would love to see a deeper source based analysis of these claims. 130.71.96.19 23:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

external links

Trey Stone, you can not remove links to web pages whose opinion you disagree with, and leave only external links to pages you agree with. This is trying to impose your POV on the article. Ruy Lopez 11:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Central Asia and Kazakhstan

In areas where the major agricultural activity was nomadic herding, collectivisation met with massive resistance and major losses of livestock. Hundreds of thousands of households fled into [[China]] and of those who remained as many as a million died in the resulting famine. Livestock in Kazakhstan fell from 7 million cattle to 1.6 million and from 22 million sheep to 1.7 million. In [[Mongolia]], a Soviet dependency, attempted collectivisation was abandoned in 1932 after the loss of 8 million head of livestock.

Ruy Lopez removed the above with the comment, "See talk", but I see nothing on talk that relates to it. These sorts of facts need to be included in article. As late as the 1950s and 60s a similar attempt was made in Tibet with dismal results. This is what happens when people don't have access to accurate information. It is Wikipedia's responsibility to have accurate information available for people to consider. We never know who may be reading an article and then acting on it decades later. Fred Bauder 16:01, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Moving articles back and forth

What's the deal with moving Collectivisation to Collectivization and back? Is is some sort of pissing match? --Gene s 09:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're damn straight it is. J. Parker Stone 22:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reversion

VeryVerily's changes reverted as a condition of my unblocking him. Although his changes seem mostly rather minor, he also deleted a good deal of material in the same edit and should make such changes gradually and with due respect of using the discussion pages a well where there is disagreement. - Marshman 05:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I noted in E-mail to Marshman that most of the deletion was a mistake, but not a huge one as this is a wiki where it's easy to patch such things up, but even so this was absolutely not a revert as Neutrality falsely charged (and blocks are harder to fix). I have made the edit with the paragraphs alluded to in E-mail restored, which is what we agreed to. Very Verily 06:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Goebbels claims

just simply reading the page, I noticed the sentence "Decades later, with the start of the Cold War, historians would begin reinvestigating Goebbels' claims and, surprisingly, most investigators found them to be true." No mention is made of what Goebbels claims are, and no link is provided. This seems rather dumb.

The point is that with The New York Times and other sympathetic media publishing stories about how wonderful conditions were in Ukraine at the height of the famine, it was thought that Goebbel's claims were just Nazi propaganda. They turned out, in large part, to be true. Not sure that information is still in the article, but that was the point being made. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Unselfconscious use of the term "kulak"

The terminology has been discussed before (#Use of word kulak, above), but this exact issue wasn't broached.

Kulak may have been a traditional term for a class in the Russian Empire, but it was used and wildly misused by the Soviet communist party. I'm concerned that this article is making the mistake of unselfconsciously doing the same when it says that "kulaks did this or that", or that "X number of kulaks were deported".

I'm not saying the term is offensive, I'm saying that we don't use the term, or at least that we don't assign the same meaning that the Soviets did during collectivization.

The article at kulak seems to avoid this, by referring to "people who were labelled kulaks", or putting quotation marks around the word. Would anyone oppose my editing this article, and any others, to use the term in the same way as that article does? —Michael Z. 2005-04-7 03:13 Z

Ye me

Just wanted to add is some of the Russian translation slightly wrong, just noticed some differances of the spelling for state and collective farms?

I have tried to clean up the article in this respect. Dietwald 09:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that by the English dictionary, since this article is written in English, defines a kulak as "kulak noun, historical a wealthy, property-owning Russian peasant." Why don't we use this definition of Kulak?82.13.128.252 14:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Martin H.

The problem is that simply people were labelled "kulaks" by the communists doesn't mean they necessarily were wealthy, property-owning Russian peasants. It may have been the case, or they may have simply been considered enemies for their opposition to communism, and therefor accused of being kulaks. - 70.71.155.24 20:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

False statements

Some communists such as Jeff Coplon and Ludo Martens have recently claimed a much more modest figure of between several hundred thousand and two million deaths.

This is complete nonesense. Walter Duranty in August 1933 for "The New York Times" estimated that there were 2 million excess deaths in the famine-stricken regions of Ukraine, Lower Volga, and North Caucusus. Over 60 years later, his estimates have been vindicated as Russian archives have revealed that excess deaths in Ukraine, Lower Volga, and North Caucusus amounted to slightly under 2 million for 1932-1933. The following table is derived from Russia's archives and is from "Years of Hunger: Sovet Agriculture, 1931-1933" by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies. It has been posted by scholar Mark Harrison of Warwick University:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Ah, you're basing figures off of SOVIET records and an article written by the Times in 1933? A bit silly to say the least.

Genocide

Repeated attempts to use the term genocide to describe the Ukrainian famine are POV. Even if I agree with you that it was a genocide, it's still disputed by a number of historians. It's clearly a famine, clearly a democide (which includes "knowingly wreckless and depraved disregard for life"), but its status as genocide is disputed. Even the Holomodor article acknowledges the dispute. -- TheMightyQuill 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For all it matters. The Ukrainian famine can be considered a genocide, but there is no agreement on this -- unlike the Holocaust, or the killing of Armenians by Turkey at the end of WWIDietwald 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I was going to disagree with you as I thought using the word genocide in reference to the massacre of Armenians is up for debate, but after reading the Armenian Genocide page, it turns out I was wrong, and the word genocide was largely invented to describe those massacres. Yay for wikipedia. So, I guess thanks for helping to remove my ignorance. -- TheMightyQuill 13:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

anytime:) Dietwald 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Amis and 'Koba the Dread'

As a historian of Soviet Russia, I would like to point out that Amis's book is considered by the majority of historians of this subject to be largely biased and poorly sourced. I completely agree with the mention of the August 7 decree on pulic property and think it is relevant to the discussion, but could this point be referenced to a historian of more repute and more thorough research? 09:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

British vs American spelling

So, generally you're supposed to go by what the first person who wrote the article used, but unfortunately, the first entry gave the article a title with British spelling (Collectivisation) but wrote content with the American spelling (Collectivization). Can anyone give any reason to choose one spelling over the other? - TheMightyQuill 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

American English is spoken by more people around the world

I'm not sure. Most europeans use british spelling, plus, many of the former british colonies. Canadians such as my self would write collectivization, but our population doesn't add much to the global total. - TheMightyQuill 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"American english is spoken by more pople around the world" - Care to cite such a bold statement?Tourskin 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"American English (AmE) is the form of English used in the United States. British English (BrE) is the form of English used in the United Kingdom and the rest of the British Isles. It includes all English dialects used within the British Isles." Source "United States of America...Population - 2007 estimate 301,366,000" Source "United Kingdom...Population - 2006 estimate 60,609,153" Source Surely, the British Isles do not have 240,000,000 residents, and surely the population of the UK has not increased 500% since last year.

American spelling is written in the United States and (as a second language) the Philippines. British spelling is written in Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Belize, Australia, New Zealand, and (as a second or minority language) Japan, Hong Kong, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria, etc.

Will Sandberg (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Collectivization after the second world war?

This article makes no mention of collectivization or Soviet agriculture after the second world war. Itoldalthea 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)iToldAlthea

It remained much as the same as before.Tourskin 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Chengiz (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Even if this were enough, it needs to be said. But it's not enough. Why did it remain the same? Did the collective farmers just sit and take it? Was there any backlash? Was overall collectivization a success in terms of the numbers? What was the social fallout? This article is mainly about "introduction of collectivization in the soviet union" and not "collectivization in the soviet union".

kolkhoz sovkhoz

Please don't add categories that do not follow from article text. The term unfree labor has a specific meaning that you have no rights to extend. In principle, all labor is unfree: if you don't work and earn for living, you will die (unless you live in a banana paradise or have millions). This is especially true for soviet Union, where not working was a criminal offense (called "social parasitism"). `'mikka 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

kolkhoz/sovkhoz were not serfdom or "unfree labor": the workers were neither slaves nor prisoners: one could leave kolkhoz and work elsewhere. And let us not go into a discussion that the whole Soviet Union was not a free society. I strongly suggest you to edit things you are expert or can provide references from material published in reliable sources. `'mikka 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You will not start reverting anything basing on your reasoning only. Passports and crops do not make it unfree labor. Please stop discussions and provide references into text. I don't see any your edits in these articles "about a year ago". `'mikka 16:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced claims into articles. `'mikka 15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Threats and Reversions

Please provide references or you will be blocked from editing. `'mikka 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You know I am getting rather bored of being threatened every other day. I have done nothing wrong. I suggest that you use the Talk Page to try and explain what you are doing rather than attempting to threaten and bully me. If you really want to denounce me to the Authorities, please, knock yourself out. This is not, however, a Soviet and I doubt it will get you anywhere. Any time you want to behave like a reasonable person and talk about the Soviet agriculture pages I'll be only too happy to have a sensible and reasonable discussion. In the meantime would it be too much to ask you cease to threaten me on my talk page? Thank you. Lao Wai 10:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I cannot reasonably discuss you until you start complying with wikipedia policies. When you startt reading books carefully in order to provide references for wikipedia, you will probably notice that in some cases you write nosense. I will only happy to discuss with you the published material, but not your conclusions and thoughts about history.

As an example let me explain you your blunder "of nationalisation of individual land and labor into cooperatives." The labor cannot be nationalized. the land was nationalized right after revolution and given to toiling peasants for use. Later it was consolidated into kolkhozes. `'mikka 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Laws that exist only on paper can hardly be said to exist in reality. I have explained what the situation was in the USSR between 1918 and 1929 and I am happy with it. What is your objection to it as it stands? You can nationalize labor as the USSR did through Labor Armies and the Gulag. I would also argue that forcing peasants to work on the land is also a nationalization of labor, but I am happy to take that "labor" out if you object. Lao Wai 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I will not discuss your opinions and conclusions. Once again, I am very strongly suggest you to understand the difference betwen writing your own book or paper and writing wikipedia articles. Please read and understand Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Attribution#Unpublished_synthesis_of_published_material. `'mikka 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not putting in any of my opinions. There is no OR. Everything I have done lately has been sources from reputable text books. I agree there is no point discussing your opinions, but I try not to do that. Lao Wai 16:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the last statement was not exactly correct. What I wanted to say is "I will not discuss your opinions and conclusions made to 'prove' some statements in the article". When I have some spare time, I may discuss anything related to the topic to understand the way of your thinking and your knowledge. `'mikka 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "Everything I have done lately has been sources from reputable text books." A quote taken out of historical context and placed into some illogical place may significantly distort the truth. An example is your sentence "It was not until the 1950s that Soviet farm animals approached their 1928 levels" In your text one may conclude that it was all fault of collectivization. Because your omitted the catastrophe of 1941-1945, which threw the economy of the country into middle ages. In addition there was a severe drought in 1946, which hit about 50% of the arable land. And in fact it was miracle (actually very hard labor) that industry and agriculture was recovered in mere 5-7 years. And dont tell me about labor armies and gulag. I wrote these articles myself, and much more. `'mikka 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to add a little bit of context that would point out the damage done to Soviet agriculture in the Ukraine and elsewhere by WW2. However as Soviet animal levels were no where near 1929 level in 1941 it is clearly not all the war's fault:

Year Cow Pigs Sheep Horses

1928 33.2 27.7 114.6 36.1

1941 27.8 27.5 91.6 21.0

1950 24.6 22.2 93.6 12.7

From which we can conclude the Collectivization was worse for all Soviet farm animals except pigs than WW2 and the 1946 drought put together.

As for context, I have all the context I need thank you. But if you can see any place where more is needed please let me know. Lao Wai 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your numbers say nothing new. Yes during the period of forced collectivization 1928-1933 there was massive slaughtering of livestock. It is written in wikipedia in several places, including the discussed article. What is your point? `'mikka 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That obviously the reference you keep cutting is 1. true, 2. relevant, and 3. proves that your claims that drought and War were the cause of the low animal numbers is factually wrong. What else could I possibly ask it to prove? Now do you have any other complaints? Lao Wai 17:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"drought and War were the cause of the low animal number": I nowhere said that. You again are drawing your own conclusions from written text. `'mikka 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please don't put your reasoning ("in is clear", etc.) into the article. Numbers OK, but your conclusions are not OK. `'mikka 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No sooner said than done. Not a hint of reasoning. Lao Wai 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed

Lao Wai adds false and incorrect material, but since no one else bothers to edit this page, despite my requests for comments in several places, I am tired to figth stubbornness alone, leaving the article tagged for future editors. `'mikka 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

16 April RfC

The RfC was initiated by mikka. I am going to look further but it appears from the article history that both mikka and Lao Wai have backed off for a day or two and that is probably best. Both of you came very close to violating the WP:3RR during your conflict. In fact, you probably did but I haven't looked that closely.

It is certain that you are both passionate about your views and we need that at Wikipedia. But it is important that we maintain a proper team attitude here. It will not serve your passions if you find yourself blocked from editing. Once you return to the article, if you find you cannot avoid conflict, you might want to go to WP:MEDCAB for informal assistance. If I can assist, please post to my talk page. As we say in my part of the world, "I ain't got a dog in that fight" so I can probably help. JodyB 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw this on the RFC log. What exactly is the main issue here? The use of the word "kulak"? The nature of the sources used and whether that conforms to WP:RS? I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest but it might help to have an "outsider" comment on your discussion.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Neutrality between Communism and Ukrainian nationalism

Okay, I know dbose2's recent edits are going to be reverted soon, and the great majority of them should be. Unreferenced accusations against people like Koestler & Orwell are totally out of line, referring to Ukrainians who view the famine as genocide as "western propagandists" is totally out of line, and a great many other things are obviously NPOV and should be reverted. The main issue, however, is difficult: how to find a version of this article that will be acceptable to both communists (who seem to have some legitimate criticisms of accusations of genocide and sources) and ukrainians (who have legitimate criticisms of communist actions and soviet sources)? "The black deeds of the kremlin" is an interesting example: I can't find any references to it on the internet aside from "Genocide memorial" pages holding it up as proof, and Communist pages, decrying it as the work of Goebbels. It was published with the author "S.O. Pidhainy" but I can't find any information on him either. Before we descend into a long revert war, can we please discuss? - TheMightyQuill 15:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe we must simply use most recent scholarly sources written by internationally recognized scientists like Robert Conquest. Some people think that one should find a "middle ground" between the official Soviet propaganda and "western science". But the middle ground between huge lie and truth is lie (as Vladimir Bukovsky said). Fortunately, no one is trying to find the middle between the science and pseudo-science in natural sciences, where I came from.Biophys 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying that, I agree 100% that a lot of statements in the present version are completely unsourced and misleading, as far as I know from the books.Biophys 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we simply do not need a long discussion of situation at Ukraine here, because there is Holodomor article. As well, we should not discuss Conquest. There is a separate article about him.Biophys 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Incredible falsehood and lies of Robert Conquest"

Someone just inserted here a text telling about "incredible falsehood and lies of Robert Conquest", without actually supporting this by credible references. This is original reserach (OR) that has no place in WP.Biophys 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Although most of the inserted text was completely unsourced, some sources have been actually provided. For example: "The famine in the Soviet Union was in 1931-33 and it was unrelated to the Colletivization Programme that has really started in 1934 (Source: E.P.Terletsky, The Collective Farms of the U.S.S.R, All Union Council of Collective Farms, page 43; Baykov, A., The Development of the Soviet Economic System, Macmillan, 1948, Pages 189-212).". This is like referring to Nazi propaganda books to "prove" that Holocaust has never happened. Sure, this is Soviet propaganda, not the Nazi propaganda, but any propaganda is not a good source about anything exept itself (propaganda is like pseudo-science - see my comment above). Biophys 16:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NYT Article:

The source specifically states, re: Harvest of Sorrow by Conquest:

The endnote gives as the source a book called "The Black Deeds of the Kremlin," edited by S. O. Pidhainy in 1953. Nowhere in the notes or in the bibliography is the credibility of this source even discussed. As it happens, like several other of Mr. Conquest's principal sources, the book was published by Ukrainian emigres in Canada and the United States not long after World War II.

The eyewitness testimony may indeed be reliable, but far more debatable is the thesis that the famine was specifically aimed as an instrument of genocide against the Ukraine. The clear implication of this book is that the author has taken the side of his Ukrainian sources on this issue, even though much of his evidence does not support it well. Mr. Conquest's attempts to document the claim that while people were starving in the Ukraine they were being well fed just across the border in Russia fall far short of a rigorous standard - a few citations from "The Black Deeds of the Kremlin" and other exile sources do not make the case. And the author himself estimates that at least two million of the approximately seven million people who died in the famine perished not in the Ukraine, but in the Northern Caucasus and other intensely agricultural areas elsewhere in the country.

The Village Voice article (I can reference this as well if that helps) states:

In The Harvest of Sorrow, Conquest outdoes himself. He weaves his terror-famine from unverifiable (and notoriously biased) émigré accounts. He leans on reportage from ex-Communist converts to the American Way. He cites both "Walker" and Ammende. Black Deeds of the Kremlin, a period piece published by Ukrainian émigrés in 1953, is footnoted no less than 145 times.

What exactly is your problem with these sources? - TheMightyQuill 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, did you read this book by Conquest? It is based on many hundreds of publications, not on the obscure "Black Deeds of the Kremlin". Your segment says: "Robert Conquest, however, has been criticized for an over-reliance on one book "Black deeds of Kremlin" by S. O. Pidhainy) as a source for estimations on the death toll in Ukraine". However your source only disputes a couple of specific examples. It does not claim and does not provide any arguments that Conquest wrongly estimated the number of victims. Most important, the estimate of the number of victims by Conquest was not based on "Black deeds of Kremlin"Biophys 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your second point, if you make a reference Village Voice, you must provide a link to Village Voice, not to a personal web site (WP:SOURCE)Biophys 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm using other peoples criticism, not my own reading of the book, as that would be original research. Second, I don't need to provide a link to the Village Voice article, as it hasn't been archived online. If you don't want to read the version on the personal website, you can go find the print article yourself. - TheMightyQuill 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert all my changes in the first paragraph? Using the book by Conquest is not OR. Quite the opposite. This is scholarly secondary source published by a notable internationally recognized historian, exactly as recommended by WP:SOURCE.Biophys 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the revert was unintentional. I thought I had edited that paragraph to keep your changes, but i must have messed it up. Citing the book by Conquest is not OR, but citing my own criticisms of it would be. I'm citing other people's criticisms, of which there are plenty, and not just by communists or soviet apologists, as the wikipedia article had previously suggested. - TheMightyQuill 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merging

Narrowly speaking, collectivization is formation of collective farms. But it is often used in the books as a combination of three different policies intended to create socialism at the countryside: (a) collectivization (narrowly defined); (b) elimination of kulaks as class (mostly their deportation); and (c) confiscation of grain. It is the combination of all three policies led to hunger as described in this article. So, can we describe "collectivization" more broadly, as a combination of all three policies? Biophys 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No. You cannot define anything. You have to use published definitions, You probably want to say that collectivization may refer to creation of collective agriculture and also it may refer to the historical period in the USSR. About "confiscation": you are using wrong terminology. Let me explain by an example: a worker at a, say, toothbrush factory does not have toothbrushes he made confiscated from him. The same with kolkhozes and sovkhozes. In sovkhozes the peasant was no longer an owner; he was work for hire. In kolkhozes he was an owner, but he was robbed by price scissors and other tricks. Some emotional people even go further and say they were slaves. So you may say that he was mercilessly exploited, but he was not "confiscated". `'Míkka 00:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say collectivization is simply collectivization narrowly defined. That doesn't mean, however, that policies of "de-kulakization" and grain confiscation can't be mentioned in the article. Grain confiscations long pre-date collectivization though...

O'K. I looked the books. Collectivization and "de-kulakization" are described as two different although related policies. However confiscation of grain was described as a part of collectivization (of course it was also practiced much earlier). In fact, the essence of the policy was taking a part of private property from the people (land, horses, cattle, grain, etc.) and bringing all of that under state control. As such, that was a program of nationalization, not just collectivization. By the way, DBose2 is back. He said that we promote Joseph Goebbels propaganda in WP. I am not going to revert him immediately, leaving this matter up to you.Biophys 15:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It was proposed to merge this article with dekulakization. That was exactly my question. If dekulakization and collectivization are two different policies, as everyone seems to think, then no merging. However, if dekulakization is a part of collectivization - why not? So, that should be decided by consensus. I do not have any strong opinions here. Biophys 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also helpful to have the short article (extended definition?) about dekulakization on its own, even if there is some overlap. Because the collectivization topic is so lengthy, the other may get lost in this article, and difficult for readers to extract. Dekulakization is also part of class conflict, history of the Soviet Union, communism, etc. but we can only consolidate so much.

The ideal situation is to leave this article as a summary article including dekulakization, with the other remaining broken out as a more detailed article on the topic.

(By the way, how did the main article history of the Soviet Union be allowed to be completely gutted—there is no main summary article!!!) —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 19:20 Z

I think it's worthwhile having two articles. Both could be expanded, and they're obviously not synonyms. Dekulakization occurred simultaneously with collectivization, but that doesn't make it the same thing. - TheMightyQuill 20:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Slaves?

Mikka, would you agree that Gulag prisoners were slaves? Biophys 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. Prison labor is a unique category of forced labor. Yes, their labor is called "slave labor" as a metaphor, but in an encyclopedia the term slave has a specific meaning and better not create a confusion. There are many important distinctions. In this metapohorical sense the whole Soviet population may be called slaves. But again, in a newspaper, but not in encyclopedia. Metaphors are useful to give a better explanations, e.g., one may write "gulag inmates have often been compared to slaves" (and provide quotations, explaining in which respect they were like slaves), but to simply say that "inmates were slaves" would be not very helpful for encyclopedic understanding who they really were. `'Míkka 16:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. We must be as precise as possible.Biophys

Edit of Themightyquill

Please explain in detail the massive deletions you did during reorganization, or your work will be reverted. `'Míkka 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the deletions were unsourced, so no further explanation is required. Others were simply incorporated elsewhere new text and leaving them in would have been redundant. Which ones were you concerned about? - TheMightyQuill 20:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Blog reference

For "The failures of collectivisation are also revealed in official documents":

The two references for this sentence are from a blog. WP:Verification states:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

An exception is carved out for:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I don't believe this blog is maintained by an established expert and question their use as source material. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 01:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are a bit mistaken about the issue here. In this case it is not a blog but rather an archive. Ane the ref is to a photocopy of a letter to a Soviet official, it and may be a temporary supplementary ref in lieu of a more direct ref. However I deleted the sentence as misplaced and falsely referrnced: the document in question is not a "Soviet offcial document", but a personal letter. `'Míkka >t 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if this site is an official archive usable as a reliable source. I was taken aback by the site's home page self-description as a blog. If this site is self-published, then please understand I am not questioning whether the documents are valid (in this case, I presume as much) but instead rather if they are reliable as defined by WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Thanks for taking care of this matter. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Other republics

We have information on Latvia and Ukraine, but not on other republics. Perhaps efforts could be made to assist the writing of paragraphs on other areas and their experiences of collectivisation. I will add chapter headings for the other two Baltic States if someone wants to fill them in for me. Lstanley1979 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Add it up

"The equal land shares among the peasants gave rise to food shortages in the cities. Although grain had nearly returned to pre-war production levels, the large estates who had produced it for urban markets had been divided up.[2] Not interested in acquiring money to purchase overpriced goods, the peasants chose to eat their produce rather than sell it, so city dwellers only saw half the grain that had been available before the war.[2] Before the revolution, peasants controlled only 2,100,000 km² divided into 16 million holdings, producing 50% of the food grown in Russia and consuming 60%. After the revolution, the peasants controlled 3,140,000 km² divided into 25 million holdings, producing 85% of the food, but consuming 80% of what they grew. .[3]"

Remaining for city dwellers: Before: 40% of 50% is 20%.
The peasants grew half the food. What remained after they had eaten 60% of that was 20% of the total grown.
After: 20% of 85% is 17%.
The peasants grew 85% of the food. What remained after they had eaten 80% of that was 17% of the total grown.

A difference of 3%. This cannot, alone, produce food shortages worth discussing, except maybe at dinner, by the city folk.

What is truly significant about these numbers is not, how much less was produced for city consumption, but how much of the percentage of the total crop they obtained per unit of land. As the number for total crop before and after is not given, and neither is the productivity of the land given to the peasants, before it was given to them, this is only a curiousity, but it is a curiousity that is statistically more significant than the supposed fact that is being presented in the article.

Before: 50% / 2,100,000 square kilometres = 0.0000002381 of the total crop per square kilometer.
After: 85% / 3,140,000 square kilometres = 0.0000002707 of the total crop per square kilometer.

2381 / 2707 = .8795
Peasants produced 88% as much of the total crop per square kilometer before, as they did after.
2707 / 2381 = 1.1369
Peasants produced 113.7% as much of the total crop per square kilometer after, as they did before.

They were given land that had previously belonged to landowners. Perhaps that was better land. Because we don't know the total productivity, they might even have produced less per acre than before. Or both. Or it was a little better, and they produced more, maybe it wasn't better, and they produced more; any combination of those. But the one thing we know for sure is, the statistics that are given do not show that it wasn't the dividing up of the land in itself that caused the famine. Which is in the article. This needs fixing.
I am 96% sure that my figures aren't Original Research. It was mathematics, and therefore empirically observable, repeatable, and verifiable. It is a scientific fact, as long as it is presented correctly. Anarchangel (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You calculations are very interesting and appear to be essentially correct. Your interpretation of the numbers also seems to be perfectly valid, and the language of the article will need to be refined by someone. Please note, however, that the problem was not insufficient production, but rather insufficient "procurement": the 17% available for city consumers according to your calculations may have been sufficient to feed the cities in theory, but in practice they were not reaching the city markets because of hoarding at the farm level. This was the nature of the "procurement crisis" of 1927, as is clearly stated even by Conquest on p. 87 of his Harvest of Sorrow. In any event, I have enjoyed reading your analysis. Your results demonstrating the higher yields (per unit of land) achieved by post-distribution individual farms are consistent with what Soviet and post-Soviet studies have been showing over the years. --Zlerman (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Martens, Ludo. Un autre regard sur Staline - a source?

The book is an apology of Joseph Stalin and isn't a "source" but rather an anecdote.Xx236 (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of victims

The collectivization caused the death of 11 440 000 [16] plus organized transfer of several millions plus flight of millions peasants. According to logic of another articles Collectivization can be described as a population transfer of (probably) 24 million.Xx236 (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

History

Why is there a lack of precursor information regarding the cause of Collectivization in the Soviet Union? There are numerous textbook sources that indicate the important role of Buhkarin and Trotsky on the formation of the idea of collective farms in the USSR. They introduced the idea as a positive change to counter the agricultural issues within the state, and to the best of my knowledge, Stalin used these ideas to exploit and terrorize the countryside. Is this a correct understanding? If so, why is this overlooked in the background section of the page? Alihay (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)alihay

I agree with this comment, and would like to see discussion of why Stalin changed from opposing collectivization when Trotsky supported it, to later enacting it in Trotsky's absence. Tibetologist (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:442px-Kolkhozianos.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:442px-Kolkhozianos.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:442px-Kolkhozianos.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Viola citations

Can we roll all of the Viola citations into one? I'm sorry, but every page of a book doesn't count as a new source of information. (This might lead to most of that 'information' being removed; which I think would benefit the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.243.128 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You can list Viola as a source and then use cites of page such and such for each fact cited. Citations should cite the page of the source for each fact used. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Decollectivization under German occupation

The title misinforms, there was no real decollectivization.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)