Thats not a correct take unless you only measure success in things like diminishing the influence of the colonial class.
For instance you bring up the matter of Maize production however, that and many other crops have not returned to pre-colonial levels (and in some cases like with Maize even pre land confiscation levels) and this becomes all the more apparent when you compare its neighbors who did not have a similar land reform policy - this is an objective fact.
Now the common response to this will be to blame foreign sanctions however this likewise doesn't make sense.
Firstly - The sanctions were fairly limited in that they covered arms trading and dealing with a list of individuals and their families, did not bar humanitarian aide and were only enforced by the imperial core. Pre-colonial Zimbabwe had far greater sanctions placed on it - including fuel, machinery and 90% of its exports and unlike the sanctions against Zimbabwe these were enforced by both the Capitalist world and the Socialist one, with only Portugal and South Africa flouting them.
Secondly and significantly even during these "murderous sanctions" The US and the EU contained to provided hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food relief via the UN.
There is a reason why no country in the developing world looks to the ZANU land reforms as a model for development let alone socialist development. Post too long. Click here to view the full text.