Collectivisation was a turning point: the beginning of a decline leading to the total impoverishment of the peasantry, as Stalin describes it, a "terrible struggle". Whilst Stalin maintains that the policy was "absolutely necessary for Russia", this is questionable. Collectivisation was an all-encompassing assault on the rural population and caused them immense suffering, thus Collectivisation may be deemed a failure. Also, agricultural productivity and quality did not substantially change, despite Stalin's comment to Churchill that; "we vastly increased the food supply... [and] improved the quality of grain beyond all measure". In this respect the policy could be viewed as a success for the government; a supply of grain for the towns and industry at a low fixed price was attained.
The Virgin Lands policy is seen as a failure by Shevardnadse. Success is only mentioned indirectly; "stupid decisions... cancelled out many successes". As was the case with Stalin, Gigantism was still inherent in communism, "billions of roubles and vast amounts of equipment and manpower were squandered", and from this stemmed a lack of incentive and spontaneity (samotyok), as fulfillment of targets was only met with higher quotas. Whilst "he interfered, reorganized and campaigned too much", the policy did advance grain production 14% in spite of Khrushchev, although far less than the expected 70% increase between 1958-1965. Shevardnadse's comments that the Virgin Lands policy was "grandiose...but poorly organised" with "stupid decisions and ill-conceived strategies" are not only true but could also be applied to the whole of Russian policy during the period. Government policy was not, then a consistent failure, but successes were an obvious anomaly during the period.
Peasant resistance during the period came in two forms, violent opposition and passive defiance. It is known that emancipation aroused resistance, due to the harmful effects it caused. Hingley hints "special community courts [were allowed] to order the flogging of recalcitrant (disobedient) peasants [and] send them to exile". Source 2 (tsarist official) plainly states that the peasants were "very hostile to the Law of 9 November". The vigour of this defiance is not mentioned, however, it is clear that the peasants would defend the commune and the security it provided.
The war that was waged on the peasants through collectivisation led to resistance. That it was carried out in spite of them is shown by Stalin's comment that "it was no use arguing with them". Furthermore, that "many agreed to come in with us" begs the question; what of those that did not? "unpopular... wiped out".
Whilst "prone to idealise the vanished past", Shevardnadse recounts that "time does not erase [memories of] hardship". Resistance here is not mentioned, perhaps alluded to in the lack of ability of those "worked... ragged" so defiance was lost in a weary haze. However, the reason for the lack of resistance was that the rural population was broken. Collectivisation had destroyed all resolve and strength that the peasants had. They were the "generation of neglect and impoverishment". Source 5 again, supplements little, although failure to fulfill quotas may demonstrate passive resistance. However, resistance also surfaced in regions and periods not covered by the sources, such as the uprisings accompanying the 1905 revolution and the 1920 Tambov rebellions. Resistance in some form was inherent throughout the period.
Thus, government policy, viewed in terms of economic effect on the country and its dwellers must be considered a failure, although not a consistent one. Success was anomalous and usually reticent, yet did surface, although infrequently, to break ruts of failure. Likewise, continuity in the prevalence of resistance was apparent, defiance existing in some form throughout the period, although not always indubitable.
