>>2784271Retarded framing like this is the only thing that kulaks and anticommunists have to counter communist arguments for progress.
First of all, kulaks didn't own the land, they leased it. Revolution brought about kulaks to actually own the land they worked. Land owners got their land confiscated in favor of local councils, which then provided the land as needed to the peasantry - kulaks included
Next, grain wasn't confiscated, it was sold to government at fixed prices, with sales to the market forbidden UNTIL the government quota was fulfilled. Also, grain hoarding in the area was punished with grain taken away from hoarders and redistributed without compensation for free, to destroy speculative pricing.
Collectivization was infiltrated by kulaks initially, who viewed it as a way to centralize rural resources in their hands. Many collective farms were disbanded for this reason, so that collective farms' power base be not rich households but rather a collective of poor farmers pooling their resources. "Forced" collectivization happened only in anticommunist propaganda, it was more like the adoption of electricity and machinery, a movement for progress and treated as such. Reactionaries - such as kulaks who clung to manual labor on their fields - got really pissy about it and wanted to restore old relations, because tractor was much, much cheaper and much, much more efficient than horses and working the fields by hand, and kulaks couldn't compete fairly. Also, you can see from statistics how collectivization decimated horse populations, because horse eats more in money terms than a tractor, and guess who in the rural area had most horses and who was leasing them to other villagers, lol
Hope this little essay helps you to set your historical knowledge straight!