This should be simple to understand

and what's wrong with it

explain your point

they could have stored some food maybe

most of industrialisations in the world are fueled by exports revenues

for the dark days

brazil, mexico, iran, turkey

just read history

they could've just not stole all the wheat and artificially forced a mass famine

It exported more to accelerate the import and development of industry, so yes it led to less consumption

wrong

but clearly I am in the wrong here

It was not the same pace

you have no data to back it up

they didnt

as I said USSR had better food security than tsarist russia

ahaha

Not really true

economy tsarist russia is practically anarchy from what i understood

they had private farms

that fed people

that's obviously true, simply USSR eliminated cyclical famines

Both were autarkic but the civil war wrecked productivity

in tsarist russia you had famine every decade or two

tbf the only country that didn't have cyclical famines for a long time was britain

And later collectivization didn't help

USSR had so called holomodor and then ww2

later there was no hunger

that's a fact

Particularly collectivization, because state run farms actually were pretty efficient

Relatively that is

[x]

collectivization was based

huge farms are better than small plots

yes

that is why even western states pursued collectivization

like france

half of french agricultural output is RN from collectivised farms

but the shared ownership concept and detailed plans when to sow and reap were retarded

that was based

agriculture doesn't work like that