The policy covered just the remaining amount owed to the property. The family would save their money, plant vegetable gardens, and did whatever work they could to pay for the cost of what they could not grow, or make for themselves. This is how the government with its consistent, relentless propaganda got the America people behind the “Social Security Act.” They understood how insurance worked, and what the benefits would be by having a policy. The Social Security program was designed in a way that people would pay into the system for many years, but would not live long enough to collect the full benefits. Most men only lived until 58 years for age, and most women only lived to 62 years of age, back in the thirties.
Farmers relied on the attractiveness of the deal to attract a number of labors because this was a chance that they might never otherwise had been able to achieve. The indentured servants would work off their debt in a given number of years, during that time they would be given room and board. After the debt was paid in full they would receive no less than 25 acres, seeds to plant, livestock, new clothing and arms. As the years passed supply and demand for labor increased and farmers were looking for a multitude of cheap labor. The new generation of servants found themselves in a position of bargaining power and they could ask more in return of their payment of debt.
After 1905 the Tsar seemed to be giving in slightly and live did improve for people in little ways, people were mostly worse off than before though. Although the Tsar started a Duma he did not give them much power and he still made most off the decisions. For the first three Dumas the Tsar did not work with them at all but by the fourth he began to. The Duma could also just be completely dissolved by the Tsar at any time. For some peasants life did improve dramatically, Stolypin set up banks that would help peasants get loans and buy land.
It is accurate to an extent to say that the most important result of the collectivisation of agriculture was that it imposed communist control on the countryside because generally this was the case; private land ownership was banned and peasants were paid an annual wage- splitting up the collective of the profits of the year, however only to an extent because it didn’t impose complete communist control as peasants in a Kolkhoz, for example, were still able to keep a private plot of land, showing not complete communism. And there were also other results of collectivisation such as the increase in migration to cities and increase of grain procurement, which were almost more important than the imposed communist control on the countryside. Collectivisation of agriculture did impose communist control on the countryside because it meant that all farming in the countryside was equal as all private land ownership was banned and so peasants could no longer sell their own goods in market. Instead collective farms were set up under the Kolkhoz or the Sovkhoz system, by 1941 98% of land was collectivised. But this wasn’t complete communist control because the peasants of the Kolkhoz were stilled allowed to keep a private plot of land.
Collectivisation was the process by which Russian agriculture was reformed. Before the introduction of collectivisation, peasants had worked on small farms with limited technology. However, by introducing collectivisation these small farms would be joined together to create large ‘collective’ farms. The aims of these new farms were to pool labour and resources, therefore leading to a more efficient system. In addition to this, the state provided tractors and fertilisers to help modernise production and make operations more efficient, just like other western countries such as the U.K, U.S.A, and France etc.
This meant that essentially capitalist kulaks were holding back Stalin’s idea of a collective farm which is owned by the state. The elite peasant farmers had advanced equipment which allowed them to profit from their work, Stalin launched his policy of dekulakisation in order to be able to take not only the land which Kulaks owned, but the livestock and machinery that allowed them to sustain themselves, and distribute it to collective farms so that they could farm more efficiently. These larger more efficient collective farms would produce grain quicker and in turn increase exports for Russia. Kulaks had too much power and influence in the countryside, they were the most powerful farmers and would have been difficult to deal with as the towns and cities were being far more focused on than the countryside. The idea of the kulak also is a problem ideologically for the communist party, as it symbolises exactly the class division which they promised to eradicate, and create equality in the countryside.
According to the National Resources Inventory, which tracks and documents the nation's natural resources, conditions and trends, 4,080,300 acres of farmland were transformed for development between 2002 and 2007. This is roughly the size of Massachusetts. If we continue to develop our land then we will have to rely more and more on bringing in food from other countries to keep up with the demand. So it is good that we have the technology to preserve and transport food around the world, but often we are using it when we don't have to. Buying local foods also has many advantages.
The failure of NEP was not the main reason why collectivisation was introduced, but to a number of other factors. Such as, Stalin wanting to make agriculture in the countryside more productive, by giving people an incentive to work and to work together. Also in making Russia more communist, the farms being state owned, and anyone not communist got rid of, e.g. Kulaks and Nepmen who did well off NEP. To raise funds (from the grain) to help assist industrialisation, creating capital investment and overall to increase Stalin and the party’s power also by getting rid of opposition e.g.
However, due to the Industrial Revolution, America began to stray from the vision the founding fathers had for the nation in the late 1700’s and 1800’s. Though social mobility was promised to immigrants and common Americans, these same people were often exploited and left in poverty. Founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, valued farming above all else, but as industrialism took hold of America, farming became much necessary, and farmers more scarce. Finally, though America’s politicians promised to hear what the common people had to say, during and after the Industrial Revolution it seemed that only the very wealthy could make any sort of impact, and there was nothing to stop them from crushing the working class underfoot. The United States of America was built on the ideal that every man should be able to make his way in the world regardless of his family or class.
They would push supply down by offering farmers a sum of money in exchange for farmers not farming a set amount of land. However, most of these payments didn’t cover the expenses the farmers gained with the lost land pushing a lot of family farms out of business. He had other programs implemented that were detrimental to family farms. Corporate farms would eventually take advantage of this as many of these programs were disastrous to family farms but beneficial to large corporate farms. (“Ganzel B.”, 2003) So where have family farms gone from the 1930’s?