# data[].attributes.headline
Mr Sim (comments / highlight for discussion)

# data[].attributes.subject
Mr Sim (comments / highlight for discussion)

# data[].attributes.body
Almost all – negative

Ryan – socially good as it allowed many people to die –

Guan Yi – positive effect

# data[].attributes.headline
Mr Sim (comments / highlight for discussion)

# data[].attributes.subject
Mr Sim (comments / highlight for discussion)

# data[].attributes.body
Jerome – earn faster – how?

Ian / Kellan / Caden / Zhan Yi / Harrison / etc. – long-term vs short-term

Tiak Hee – sudden shift / change

Damian – restrict growth of a country’s economy

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation has resulted in food shortages amongst the peasants of USSR. Many peasants resorted to cannibalism to survive.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation was beneficial to some extent because more manufactured goods, including machinery for the collective farms were produced. It allowed for the expansion of the USSR's industry.
However, many people suffered food shortages. For example, the Great Famine of 1932-1933 had led to the deaths of millions of peasants.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mr Sim (comments / highlight for discussion)

# data[].attributes.subject
Mr Sim (comments / highlight for discussion)

# data[].attributes.body
Damian – did the hoarding and stockpiling of food really happen?

Jovial – Stalin using his absolute power….abuse his power? To do what?

Zhan Yi / Ryan – how did Collectivisation help to strengthen Stalin’s (or the state’s) power?

Cheng En – lessen the burden of the farmers - how?

# data[].attributes.body
Negative mostly.
Constant suffering of people in the USSR. Cannibalism, pain and suffering. The fact that they chose to eat human flesh shows desperation of the situation, and shows that it was dire to that point.

# data[].attributes.body
Socially, collectivisation was not good as many Kulaks who disagreed with the process were killed in the process of giving up their lands and properties to the government. Some even resorted to burn their properties to stop the government from retrieving the properties needed for industrialisation. The government also removed some of the Kulak's properties for them to become adapted to the industrialisation process as horses were killed for Kulaks to be forced to use tractors

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation made everyone equal on the farms. However, many died from hunger due to the very little amount of food given to them (10% of total produce). They were upset with this system and burned their crops and slaughtered their animals in protest.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is bad as many people died and suffered. Peasants did not get richer even after collectivisation.

# data[].attributes.body
Economically, Collectivisation was good because it would allow Russia to earn faster. Factories were also built to increase production

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that collectivisation has both pros and cons socially. Collectivisation removed the class divide between the Kulaks and the proles, which allowed for a more socially equal society, with everyone being the same class. However, it also caused massive deaths and harms towards the peasantry

# data[].attributes.body
Economically, collectivisation would result in the need for fewer peasants to work in the farms and they could be sent to work in the cities.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation was bad in the social perspective, this is because there were lots of people who suffered and died. Many were killed and sent to harsh labour camps.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good economically as it allowed for a greater yield of crops although it dropped at first and caused many Kulaks to die of starvation.

# data[].attributes.body
Economically, collectivisation was well as it allowed the expansion of industrialisation throughout the USSR. There were also profits made from crops grown in the country and sold off to other parts of the world. There were also workers working at factories built to increase production of resources.

# data[].attributes.body
Economically, it was good in the long term. Collectivisation involved selling 90% of Kolkhoz produce to the state at a low cost, making it easier to get food supplies to the status. Collectives under state control also made it easier to procure gain in the long term.

# data[].attributes.body
Socially, collectivisation killed a lot of the kulaks and seized a lot of their privately owned farms. In 1928, 25million privately owned farms were seized.

# data[].attributes.body
People still suffered socially under collectivisation, even if famines calmed down. Peasants never became richer, as the productivity increased as profits were ultimately sent back to the state.

# data[].attributes.body
Socially, collectivisation had negative repercussions as it caused a lot of terrorism and threat to the people which the resulted in many people dying. They suffered from hunger due to poor agricultural methods and the burning of crops. Dekulkaistion also led to many people dying.

# data[].attributes.body
Many Kulaks burnt, killed, and buried their produce in order to prevent the government from seizing their goods.

# data[].attributes.body
Socially, collectivisation is negative as it led to the Great Famine of 1932-33, which led to the deaths of millions of peasants in parts of the Soviet Union. This also led to cannibalism in some parts of USSR.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is bad as agricultural production decreases after it is implemented and contributed to the Great Famine in 1932-1933. The kulaks were also forced to give up their lands and crops to the state and after that millions of kulaks were killed and sent to harsh labour camps, which caused great suffering.

# data[].attributes.body
Socially, collectivisation had a negative repercussion as many kulaks lost their lives or were sent to the gulag during dekulakisation and the peasants were turned against them

# data[].attributes.body
it is good as it greatly centralized the resources and thus raised productivity. this transformed russia from an agrarian country to a highly industrialized superpower. this did not only improved the quality of life inside the country but also strengthened russia's external power. if this was not done, now we may be under hitler's rule.

# data[].attributes.body
Politically, collectivsation has both pros and cons. Collectivsation gave power back to the government, where the government would have acces to food stores and excess food when required, allowing them to distribute the food if needed. However, this could also be a bad thing. Should the government be corrupt, they might decided to hoard the food for themselves while ignoring the needs of the people, which could have been avioded should the people be ablke to own the food they grow

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is bad as it had its consequences on the people. Force and terror was imposed on the Kulaks who highly resisted collectivisation which caused the death of many. Some were sent to harsh labour too.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good because it help to modernise Russia and its agriculture and it become to industrial powerhouse.

# data[].attributes.body
Socially, collectivisation had a lot of negative effects as millions of people died due to hunger due to poor agricultural methods, the slaughter of animals and burning of crops by the previous landowners ie kulaks such as the Soviet Famine of 1930-1933 which resulted in the deaths of 5.7 to 8.7 millions. It also resulted in the deaths of millions of kulaks and their family during dekulakisation.

# data[].attributes.body
Good
In the long run, collectivisation would allow Russia to become richer and industrialise. By collectivisation, the crops produced would be under the state's control which could be sold off to other countries to make a profit. Also, there would be more land to build factories and would be more workers which allows more workers to work in the factories, increasing productivity.

Bad
As a result of collectivisation, although not intended, the kulaks burnt down their farms which lessen their yield and USSR's economy dropped.

# data[].attributes.body
Politically, collectivisation was good as it allowed USSR to modernise its agriculture in order to aid with Stalin's aim of rapid industrialisation

# data[].attributes.body
Economically, collectivisation was bad in the short-term but good in the long-term for the economy of USSR. When collectivisation was first implemented, production dropped from 1930 to 1931. However, there was increased productivity, for example tractors used under the Motor Tractor System. Thus, production shot up and doubled in 1938, thus there was a long-term benefit.

# data[].attributes.body
In the economic sense, Collectivisation was not as good as it caused food shortage due to the sudden shift from having many small farms to a few large collective government owned farms, and the number of farmers also decreased, as workers were sent to work in industrial factories. However, after an adjustment period, the industrialised farm would produce more produce due to the new agricultural tools

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good because politically, it helped Russia in modernisation and be able to make it into a communist state.

# data[].attributes.body
Economically it is both bad short term, and good long term. Crops were not productive in the first few years of collectivisation and there were famines all over the USSR. There were not enough crops to feed people. However, in the long run, I think collectivisation, with enough time and materials gathered over the years, the productivity of farming will possibly shoot up.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good because it solved agricultural problems to transform Russia into an industrialised nation

# data[].attributes.body
Politically, collectivisation is good because it removed the aspect of capitalism by punishing the Kulaks and promote socialist equality as everyone was equal on the farm.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation was bad in the short term, as it caused a drop in terms of productivity. However, in the long term, collectivisation caused a sharp increase in production and the goal of transforming the USSR to become highly industrialised was closer.

# data[].attributes.body
Politically, Stalin's collectivisation removed any sort of capitalists elements in the state of the kulaks who were allowed to prosper under Lenin's New Economic Plan. Dekulakisation also removed them and made the farmers all equal

# data[].attributes.body
socially, it has more positive results. collectivisation helped equalise the resources, eradicating social inequality. before it was implemented kulaks might exploit the proletariat, poor farmers, as they worked for the kulaks, especially during droughts or floods. the poor farmers might die this way. since the poor farmers are the majority and the kulaks are the minority, collectivisation is good in terms of reducing the number of death.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation was good socially as it allowed many people to die.This will decrease the costs for living and allow Russia to save costs so that the other populations of Russia could thrive and live a better life compared to their lives in poverty before

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good in the sense that it allowed Russia to become the industrial powerhouse that Stalin aimed for it to be. Promotes socialist equality, making everyone equal.

# data[].attributes.body
Socially, collectivisation had a negative repercussion when force was used on the kulaks and many people died as a result. Collectivisation even turned the peasants against the kulaks.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good because politically, it allowed USSR to modernise its agriculture to aid Stalin's main aim of rapid industralisation.

# data[].attributes.body
it is in the countries national interest to industrialise ussr to turn into a major power in the long run

# data[].attributes.body
economically, collectivisation was very effective because it helped in the rapid industrialization in russia. it also lead to a much larger yield of crops, and hence an increase in profit

# data[].attributes.body
Even though collectivisation led to more efficient farming and increased production, since the farms were going to be forcefully taken away by the state, the Kulaks burned their farms and slaughtered the animals to eat them. This led to food shortages and therefore a famine.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good politically as it allowed the USSR to transform into an industrialised power to become a world power and even catch up to the Western Countries. It was not as good however as Stalin had used his absolute and brutal power to execute the actions needed for the idea of turning USSR into a superpower as well as turning Russia communist.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good because politically as it got rid of the remaining capitalism in USSR, where the kulaks were slightly richer.

# data[].attributes.body
Economically,collectivisation was good as it shot up the produce of Russia in the long run at around 1938.This allowed Russia to maximise profits so that it could turn its highly agrarian society into a highly industrialised superpower

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation was good economically in the long term because it would lead to the modernisation of USSR’s agriculture in order to aid Stalin’s main aim of rapid industrialisation, which can be more efficient. Collectives could produce more food for feeding the people in the cities, and the money earned could be used to buy machinery.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation caused the elimination of all traces of capitalism. Stalin wanted to transform the USSR to a communist state. Hence, collectivisation helped in a way that it made everyone equal and there will not be people that are richer than others.

# data[].attributes.body
Many people suffered under collecitvisation in the first few years from 1929, with widespread famine leading to cannibalism and death. For example, the Holdomor killed 3 million Ukranians because of howmos tof the food were confiscated by the state

# data[].attributes.body
Socially, it can be said that, Collectivisation was a failure. It provoked much resistance and violent opposition to, and in an attempt to not hand over their crops and livestock, farmers burnt their crops and killed their livestock. Anyone who resisted became labelled a Kulak and under Stalin’s ‘Dekulakisation’, suspected Kulaks were deported to Siberia or sent to labour camps. Also, not much foreign money was gained for grain exports as was hoped (to be used for industrialisation) due to economic problems in the west; the Great Depression reduced grain prices. Human costs were astonishing; thousand upon thousands died due to the Soviet Regime, hundreds were deported or sent to Gulag prison camps. Overall, I think that in order for the USSR to fulfil its aim of becoming an industrial nation, peoples lives and agriculture were sacrificed – It has been said that Stalin had clear economic and political motives, which he hoped to carry out once he was in power; he was aware of people’s unwillingness to give up their land etc, thus he was prepared to use force in order to be successful.

# data[].attributes.body
In the economic sense, collectivisation helped to collect enough grain for feeding of industrial towns and purchase of industrial equipment.
It also gathered enough manpower for factories.

However, there was an initial drop in grain production and many Kulaks died of starvation.

# data[].attributes.body
Even though at the first few years the crop produced isnt enuff for the entire community, production shot up durig the next few years, suggestig that it is only good for a longer time.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good because politically, at least for the USSR, which was supposed to be a socialist country. Collectivisation removed the traces of Capitalism by punishing the Kulaks, and promoted socialist equality as everyone was equal on the farm. Kulaks were no longer rich. It is also bad for the rest of the world as even though socialism as a concept is amazing, but human nature makes it near impossible to achieve. Collectivisation makes the state and Stalin have absolute power over everyone in the USSR, despite promising equality.

# data[].attributes.body
In the economic sense, collectivisation is good because it allowed to have enough crops to allow the USSR to afford machinery that allowed the country to be an industrial powerhouse on par with other nations ie USA, Britain

# data[].attributes.body
Good
Collectivisation is good because it helped Russia reach a communist state, by collectivisation, the Kulaks who were slightly richer, were made poorer as their farms were gone. This ensured socialist equality among all the people in USSR, which meant that Russia was closer to reaching a communist state.

Bad
Collectivisation caused the Kulaks to rebel as they were unhappy with the government for taking away their farms. As a result, the Kulaks burnt down the farms which caused Russia's economy to drop.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good politically as transformed Russia into a highly industralised superpower so that it could keep up with the western countries.However,it was bad politically as it showed that Stalin was in absolute power/sole dictator and which may be contradicting the idea of communism/socialism

# data[].attributes.body
Economically, collectivisation may not be as good as it can restrict the growth of a countryś economy. As workers are not allowed to sell excess grain or produce, it would affect the market for produce which could in turn hurt a countryś agricultural sector. This might also result in the sector being unable to support itself and new developments, requiring support from the government.

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good because politically, it allowed Russia to be pushed towards where the other major powerhouse countries like america and Britain were and even the playing field. In addition, it further strengthened the ideal of socialist equality, as now there was no more kulak class

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation was good as it allows a greater amount of produce from peasants in general instead of the produce being funnelled towards the Kulaks.

# data[].attributes.body
it made Russia's agriculture more efficient, which it did in some aspects; it succeeded in providing the resources for industrialisation to occur (however, this view has been disputed as valuable resources were diverted to agriculture such as tractors, rather than providing food for the towns), peasants driven out from the countryside were provided with employment from new factories, it introduced modern/new technology which helped to further grain production and procurement and towns benefited. Also, more officials now in the countryside, who ensured that grain was obtained by force. This force showed that they had power over the peasants and every aspect of their lives.

# data[].attributes.body
collectivisation is good because politically, it removes traces of capitalism which allows the USSR to commit fully as a communist country

# data[].attributes.body
collectivisation allows more crops to be farmed and it somewhat lessens the burden of farmers by using modern day farming equipments like tractors

# data[].attributes.body
it proves and show to the people of ussr and the world that communism is possible and it allows the country to industrialise and become a world power, it also ensures that all the peasants percieve that they are equal and there is no difference in class

# data[].attributes.body
It was bad economically at the start due to how new the concept was, hence there were many ways in which collecivistion was being mishandled. Production dropped due to how technology was still beng implemente and there was widespread famine. However, as new agricultural tools were being used, production increased

# data[].attributes.body
socially, collectivisation has more severe implications. there was a lot of force and terror when implementing collectivisation, and hundreds of people were brutally murdered and starved to death

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation is good because politically, it...

# data[].attributes.body
In the economic sense, collectivisation is not good as...

# data[].attributes.body
Socially, collectivisation has more negative repercussions especially in terms of...