The bad experiences and final failure of collectivization of course prompted reflection and reexamination of earlier attitudes. The first reaction was a return to renewed examination of the Marx­ ist texts. As early as 1950, Bakaric, in a study of land rent in the transitional stage, considered Soviet theory and practice in the light of the positions of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Bakaric concluded that the Soviet nationalization of the land in 1917 "is the result of peasant striving for the creation of a small-scale peasant farm, and not the transition of agriculture from capitalism to socialism. In this form, differential rent also.. .belongs to the producer" [58, p. 125]. This nationalization "gave land to small producers, and later cooperatives, for perpetual use. It exempted land from com­ merce .. .but precisely greater commerce in land, greater oppor­ tunity of obtaining it, is the main sense of land nationaliza­ tion . . . " [p. 96]. In studying the texts, Bakaric happened upon Engels’s statement that handing over land rent to the state is equal to the elimination of individual private ownership [62, p. 575], but he still did not confront completely the far-reaching economic pol­ icy consequences of this fact.10