In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Conclusions CONSTANTIN IORDACHI KATHERINE VERDERY This book has provided 17 papers on collectivization in Romania, ranging from broad national-level overviews to case studies of small villages. Based on interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives and employing rich empirical material, the book contributes to understanding collectivization in several important respects. First, although we focus on a single country, our case studies open up new possibilities for comparing patterns of collectivization in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, shedding new light upon the relationship between national and international factors. In what follows, we describe some similarities and differences between the process of collectivization in Romania and in other Eastern European countries. Second, the volume highlights the theoretical and methodological implications of research on collectivization for our understanding of the nature of the communist rule, with an emphasis on the first phase of the institutionalization and consolidation of the new communist regimes. Finally, the book confirms the value of an interdisciplinary orientation combining social and cultural history with sociology and anthropology. Toward the end of our Conclusions we illustrate this point in our critical evaluation of emerging neo-totalitarian interpretations of the communist experience. 1. COLLECTIVIZATION IN EASTERN EUROPE Romanian collectivization is best understood by placing it in the wider comparative perspective of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe. The findings from our case studies enable us to approach that goal. In this section, we provide a short overview of the main stages and types of collectivization across the region and their outcomes, which reflect different patterns of socialist agricultural production .1 In accounting for national variations, we consider several factors, among which the most notable are the strength of the Communist Party, the level of urbanization and industrialization, the balance of forces between the regime and the peasantry at various times, and the extent of Soviet involvement and its impact. These factors suggest that collectivization and socialist agriculture should be evaluated not in terms of a checklist of economic successes or failures, but in view of their long-term impact on rural societies. Collectivization and the Transformation of Social Relations 456 1.1. Stages in the collectivization campaign The collectivization of agriculture in post-1945 Eastern Europe followed the Soviet blueprint by and large, being part and parcel of the general process of Sovietization. The main preconditions of collectivization were the communist take-over and the implementation of extensive land reforms, in order to eliminate the aristocracy as a major social player and to complete the “bourgeoisdemocratic ” revolution, thus creating—according to the official dogma—the basic premises for constructing socialism. By 1948, if not earlier, Communist parties had fully taken power in each Eastern European country, with the “fraternal ” assistance of the Red Army and with varying degrees of popular support. Sometime between 1945 and 1948, most countries had effected land reforms of varying magnitude. Per capita, the largest amount of land was redistributed in Hungary (where two-thirds of the peasants had been landless) and Poland, then Albania, then Romania and Czechoslovakia, then Yugoslavia, and last Bulgaria (where the property structure was already the most egalitarian before World War II). In countries that redistributed a great deal of land, the communists initially gained some popularity (doubtless an objective of the reform), even though the recipients would later have to give it away. Land reforms and political consolidation allowed the new regimes to engage in the arduous task of collectivizing the countryside. The beginning of the campaign can be traced back to 1948, when the Cominform affirmed the urgency of collectivization , and Eastern European leaders hastened to comply. This was true even in countries that deviated from the Soviet line, such as Yugoslavia—expelled that year at Soviet urging on the grounds that Tito was too independent, was ignoring class struggle in the countryside, and was not drawing the appropriate lessons from the Soviet experience but instead trying to build socialism with private property . Although no detailed Soviet masterplan was drawn up for collectivization in Eastern Europe, national campaigns throughout the region emulated the Soviet example, with certain deviations. The initial drive began in 1948–1949, interrupted by a period of retreat after Stalin’s death in 1953. The process was then resumed around 1955, sometimes with further interruptions (e.g., the Hungarian revolution of 1956). By 1962, at the latest, it was brought to conclusion, using less coercive tactics in this second stage, in Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary and Romania.2 Yugoslavia and Poland began to collectivize but did not pursue the...

Share