There was the context for collectivization as rapidly industrializing agriculture, which did lay the foundation for the rapid urban growth afterwards and the prevention of further famines which were regular occurrences up to that point through the new established agricultural infrastructure. The middle class developed from the resulting maturation of industrialization and urbanization instead. So the economy itself underwent a rapid shift from peasant based to factory worker based and beyond to catch up with the developed world.

Of course there is the human cost of such rapid change, but I wonder if the swiftness was compacting human immiersation into a tighter time frame rather than having it evened out over a long period of time. Perhaps the huge economic disruption led to more overall immiseration? Or did the planners think that rapidness would have resulted in less overall immiseration like a trolley problem? If South Korea was an example, students depised the pro-industrialization military dictators, but later generations have started to appreciated the fruits and sacrifice of pro-industrialization.

Interestingly as a side note, North Korea has a more corn based agriculture out of necessity to adapt to the poorer agricultural conditions of the north versus south, which was traditionally the farmland of Korea.