The reasons for the unprofitableness of agriculture in developed countries or how farmers were made agricultural slaves. Peasant, agricultural worker turned into debt slave Peasant agricultural worker
Peasant, agricultural worker turned into a debt slave
First letter "p"
Second letter "e"
Third letter "o"
The last beech letter "n"
Answer to the question "Peasant, agricultural worker turned into a debt slave", 4 letters:
peon
Alternative crossword questions for peon
Verse meter
Farm laborer in Mexico
South American farmhand
Agricultural worker in Latin America
Poetic foot
Definition of peon in dictionaries
Wikipedia
Definition of a word in the Wikipedia dictionary
Peon is a poetic meter. Peon is a farm laborer in Latin America. Peon is a commune in France, in the Alpes-Maritimes department.
Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998
The meaning of the word in the dictionary Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998
PEON (Greek paion) is a poetic meter formed by 4-compound feet; depending on which syllable of the foot has a strong place, the 1st peon (on the 1st syllable of the foot), 2nd, 3rd and 4th are distinguished. In the Russian syllabo-tonic verse the 2nd and 3rd peons appear ...
New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language, T.F. Efremova.
Meaning of the word in the dictionary New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language, T.F. Efremova.
m. A four-syllable poetic foot of the antique metric of one struck and three unstressed syllables. m. Peasant, agricultural worker turned into a debt slave.
Examples of the use of the word peon in literature.
About two hundred peons, they were all newcomers - from Ayacucho, Apurimac, especially a lot of people came from Huancayo and Concepcion, in the province of Junin.
Pedro, having examined her, seriously advised to take her to the hut for the night and keep a vigilant guard: who knows if some peon from the nearest hacienda, would she want to feast on it?
The population of this planet is divided into two main groups: one group is Free, the other unites grabens, sinks and peons.
But when the music floats from the sea and spreads over the fort, over the schooners and canoes and speaks of love, Guma forgets about everything and surrenders his soul only to this beautiful, lulling, smooth peone.
God expressed his will, and peon went to the plot, where Groom was already tapping with an ax.
The reasons for the unprofitableness of agriculture in developed countries or how they made peasants agricultural slaves.
A grain thrown into the ground gives one ear. An ear contains from 10 to 80 grains, depending on the plant. That is, 1 part of the cost will be in 9-79 parts of income. That in translation into economic language is 900-7900 percent of the profit. Even taking into account the fact that a third of the seeds will not sprout, it turns out 300-2000 percent of the profit. Net profit. That is why Robinson Crusoe planted several grains and a year later provided himself with a comfortable life. That is why, in ancient times, agriculture has always been profitable. Always and everywhere. Even in northern countries like Russia. It is no coincidence that Russia has exported grain and agricultural products to warmer Europe for centuries. Agriculture, by definition, cannot be unprofitable if you know the surrounding nature well and follow its laws. It has always been this way! Therefore, living on land meant having a stable income for your family. But since the days of the USSR, agriculture has become unprofitable. There was even such a principle: if they wanted to ruin the career of a party worker, then he was sent to "raise agriculture." And then they just shot him for poor performance. In the USSR, agriculture was actually unprofitable, despite all the experiments in the countryside. And it's not about the collective farms. This collective farm is the same artel, only which submits to the authorities as a military unit in the army and from which all income is taken away. But this is not the main reason for the unprofitableness of collective farms. Because agriculture is also unprofitable in the US and in Europe and in all technically developed countries. This can be seen throughout the twentieth century. And even now, farmers are suffering losses from their farming. It is more profitable not to work than to work. So what's the deal? Why did what was profitable before the nineteenth century suddenly become unprofitable in the twentieth century? What made agriculture unprofitable? Compare farming methods from past centuries to that of the 20th century. When agriculture was profitable, then:
- - plowing was done by hand or on horses. Horses, unlike harvesters, breed. Therefore, with a careful attitude to animals, the plowman will have many "living mechanisms" that feed themselves, repair themselves and also reproduce. This means that in 10 years, when the horse gets old, you will have a new horse, and maybe a whole herd of healthy strong horses. Also with manual labor. The larger the family, the richer it lives. Because there are many assistants. Sowing by hand is very simple and can be done by both an old man and a small child. A child and an old man cannot sow a field on a tractor. The cost of plowing and sowing tools in past centuries was small compared to the cost of a modern combine. Only one blacksmith in the village could provide all the village's need for tools. The village was self-sufficient. The village did not depend on anyone, except for the tsar's decrees on taxes and taxes. Thus, plowing and sowing was easier and cheaper than now. Labor costs were less in agriculture and there was independence from gasoline prices, parts, strikes and other problems of the city. It is the introduction of industrial technology in agriculture that ruins the village. Tractors are very expensive, require constant maintenance, and they do not breed and will never breed. - The harvest was taken care of by hand. It is hard work? Not very good for a healthy person. Such work improved health. Taking care of equipment destroys health. And the use of pesticides destroys both the nature and health of the villagers. This means that it destroys the village and the townspeople. This is as stupid as building a lead plumbing in Rome. Everything became "civilized" and beautiful, only the Romans began to die out. Previously, clean water was drunk in wells and in streams. And then they began to drink lead poisoned water from the tap. Rome has degraded. The same is with the villages now. Manual labor taught to work together and strengthened health. The invincible Russian army consisted of ninety percent of peasants and Cossacks (the same peasants, only trained to fight from childhood). - Harvesting was done by hand or using horses. Therefore, the costs were small for cleaning: to feed the horses and people and sharpen the sickle. A sickle costs a million times less than a combine. And any family can buy a sickle and a scythe from a blacksmith. And in general, the more workers there are in the family, the richer she lived. The more friendly the rural community is, the better the village lived. Evidence? All roads were previously built by peasants. They financed the construction of the roads themselves. Which farmer or collective farm can finance and build a road now? Using combines for harvesting is simply ruinous for the village. Combines do not breed. In addition, three types of machines are needed to work: a tractor (for plowing), a machine (for transporting people and goods), and a combine (for harvesting). Previously, all this work was done by the horse and people. This means that expenditures in the countryside have increased hundreds, and maybe tens of thousands of times. Therefore, agriculture has become unprofitable in all developed countries. - Training in rural wisdom was carried out in the village. Therefore, young people usually rarely moved to cities. Nowadays, training in rural labor takes place, as a rule, in other cities in vocational schools and universities, and usually young people do not return to the village. In general, the education system around the world is built in such a way that it prepares a child for life in the city, and not in nature. He is taught about shares, pension funds, higher mathematics and other nonsense that are not needed in order to grow bread ... And before the peasants taught children the knowledge of herbs, caring for horses and other animals, crafts, knowledge of the local climate and various subtleties of the family and social life. As a result, a 14-year-old child could live in the forest and feed himself and his family if necessary. Therefore, the Russian army consisting of men could pass through any terrain. Man simply knew how to understand nature and could take care of himself and those around him in any living nature. Now a rare graduate of a vocational school or university can live in nature himself - it turns out that a person has spent several years of his life, but does not know what every child could do in ancient times. And so he simply cannot do business well in the countryside. As a result, the graduate remains to live in the city. Simply put, village children are taught what they don't need to live happily on earth. Therefore, they leave for the city. They were simply given knowledge for life in the city, but they were not given knowledge for life in the countryside. The uniform standard of education is one of the reasons for the extinction of villages and the departure of young people to the city from the villages. I was in a rural school in Russia. There is a list of prestigious professions in the class: programmer, manager, bank employee, ..... I don’t remember exactly the list, but there was not a single rural profession. There was not even a beekeeper on the list, although even in the USSR, beekeepers lived well. It turns out that even in a rural school, children are taught that "leave here. You have no future here. Your professions and knowledge are not needed here. You can only achieve success and happiness in the city." This is what the uniform standard of education in Russia and other developed countries. The Indians don't have such nonsense. Therefore, the Indians of North America do not die out, but continue to live. As well as the Russian villages of the Old Believers in the USA and Canada. As they lived richly under the king, they still live.
- - Sowing takes place with the help of machines. So the farmer depends on: 1. the price of gasoline. 2. on the prices of the tractor. 3. from the supply of spare parts. As a result, the village ceased to be self-sufficient. It can be easily ruined and let loose in the world. In fact, the village was turned into rural slaves who constantly work to pay the cost of equipment and the cost of houses, and return loans. Virtually all farms take loans for sowing. But this means that they feed banks, factories (which build tractors, combines, make spare parts, produce gas stations). Virtually all farms in the world are in debt bondage. That is, they are slaves who constantly have to work to pay debts. So, agriculture becomes unprofitable even after sowing. - Caring for the crop with the help of automatic irrigation and fertilization is more expensive than manual labor and horses. And besides, the crop grown in this way is much worse in quality. This means that both the villagers and the townspeople with this method of production are simply destroying their health, the health of their children and the health of those who buy their products. - Harvesting with combines. Combines and spare parts are expensive. In addition, the fewer children there are, the less worries for the agricultural worker. Because children cannot participate in the modern way of producing rural products. This means that even the villagers, with the existing farming system, are interested in having few children. As a result, villages are dying out. For comparison, let me remind you once again: the Old Believers who run the economy in a natural way do not die out, the Indians and other people who do not use technology in the production of rural products do not die out.
- - The use of machinery and fertilizers and methods of deep plowing destroys the nature and health of villagers and townspeople. As a result, people become sick and unable to work well. This means that there will be no quality work. Patients cannot work well. - It is economically unprofitable for the peasant to farm according to modern methods, since the costs increase hundreds and thousands of times compared to the old-fashioned agricultural methods of past centuries. Therefore, the peasant will be constantly at a loss and the peasant becomes dependent on urban industries (factories, the production of gasoline and engine oil) - The use of combines and tractors creates unemployment in the countryside, and therefore creates injustice. This leads to an increase in crime and drug addiction and drunkenness and a decrease in the number of children born. And looking at injustice, people learn immorality and lies.
Medieval Europe was very different from modern civilization: its territory was covered with forests and swamps, and people settled in areas where they could cut down trees, drain the swamps and engage in agriculture. How did the peasants live in the Middle Ages, what did they eat and do?
Middle Ages and the era of feudalism
The history of the Middle Ages covers the period from the 5th to the beginning of the 16th century, up to the onset of the modern era, and refers mainly to the countries of Western Europe. This period is characterized by specific features of life: the feudal system of relationships between landowners and peasants, the existence of lords and vassals, the dominant role of the church in the life of the entire population.
One of the main features of the history of the Middle Ages in Europe is the existence of feudalism, a special socio-economic structure and mode of production.
As a result of internecine wars, crusades and other hostilities, kings endowed their vassals with lands on which they built their estates or castles. As a rule, the whole land was donated together with the people living on it.
Dependence of peasants on feudal lords
The wealthy lord received all the land surrounding the castle, on which villages with peasants were located. Almost everything that the peasants did in the Middle Ages was taxed. Poor people, cultivating their land and his, paid the lord not only tribute, but also for the use of various devices for processing the crop: ovens, mills, a press for crushing grapes. They paid the tax in natural products: grain, honey, wine.
All peasants were in strong dependence on their feudal lord, practically they worked for him in slave labor, feeding on what remained after growing the crop, most of which was given to their master and the church.
Wars periodically took place between the vassals, during which the peasants asked for the protection of their master, for which they were forced to give him their allotment, and in the future they became completely dependent on him.
Dividing peasants into groups
To understand how the peasants lived in the Middle Ages, you need to understand the relationship between the feudal lord and the poor people who lived in the villages in the territories adjacent to the castle, cultivated land.
The tools of labor of peasants in the Middle Ages in the field were primitive. The poorest harvested the ground with a log, others with a harrow. Later, scythes and pitchforks made of iron appeared, as well as shovels, axes and rakes. Since the 9th century, heavy wheeled plows have been used in the fields, a plow has been used on light soils. For harvesting, sickles and threshing chains were intended.
All tools of labor in the Middle Ages remained unchanged for many centuries, because the peasants did not have the money to purchase new ones, and their feudal lords were not interested in improving working conditions, they were only concerned about getting a large harvest at minimal cost.
Peasant discontent
The history of the Middle Ages is notable for the constant confrontation between the large landowners, as well as the feudal relationship between the rich lords and the impoverished peasantry. This situation was formed on the ruins of an ancient society in which slavery existed, which was clearly manifested in the era of the Roman Empire.
The rather difficult conditions of how the peasants lived in the Middle Ages, the deprivation of their land plots and property, often provoked protests, which were expressed in different forms. Some of the desperate fled from their masters, others staged massive riots. The rebellious peasants almost always suffered defeat due to disorganization and spontaneity. After such riots, the feudal lords sought to consolidate the amount of duties in order to stop their endless growth and reduce the discontent of the poor.
End of the Middle Ages and the slave life of peasants
With the growth of the economy and the emergence of production towards the end of the Middle Ages, an industrial revolution took place, many villagers began to move to cities. Among the poor and representatives of other classes, humanistic views began to prevail, which considered personal freedom for each person an important goal.
As the feudal system was abandoned, an era came, called the New Time, in which there was no longer a place for the outdated relationships between peasants and their lords.
One hundred years ago, the Russian Empire was one of the five largest imperialist states and, at the same time, a country, the share of the rural population of which was about 85%, as well as a state that preserved a vestige of the feudal system - tsarism. Capitalism, which was rapidly developing in Russia, required a new, different structure of the state apparatus, the old feudal uniform was already cramped for him, interfered with.
The first Imperialist War precipitated the fall of the tsarist regime in February 1917. “Millions and tens of millions, politically asleep for ten years, politically downtrodden by the terrible oppression of tsarism and hard labor for landlords and manufacturers, woke up and turned to politics. And who are these millions and tens of millions? For the most part, small proprietors, petty bourgeois, people standing in the middle between capitalists and wage workers. Russia is the most petty-bourgeois country of all European countries "- this is how Lenin wrote in April 1917 (VI Lenin," The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution ", Collected Works, vol. 31, p. 156). The capitalists did not want to moderate their appetites in the interests of the people. The new capitalist Russia could not meet the demands of these millions and tens of millions of working people.
The struggle of this mass of working people for their fundamental interests led to the socialist revolution in October 1917.
“What classes does the Russian working masses consist of? Everyone knows that they are workers and peasants. Which one is in the majority? Peasants. Who are these peasants in terms of their class position? Small proprietors or proprietors, ”Lenin wrote even before the October Revolution. (VI Lenin, "One of the fundamental issues", Collected Works, vol. 31, p. 301)
This state of society, when the working people are represented by the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie, small owners and proprietors, affected the structure of the state that arose after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution. In the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, “Russia is declared the Republic of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. All power in the center and in the localities belongs to these Soviets, "the 1925 Constitution of the RSFSR states that all power belongs to the" Soviets of Workers ', Peasants', Cossack and Red Army Deputies. "
The Soviet Republic restored and developed industry in the city and at the same time helped the peasants to unite in large agricultural enterprises - collective farms - sending representatives of the working class, equipment to help, and creating machine and tractor stations.
The development of social production led to an increase in the urban population and a decrease in the rural population (by 1961 the share of the rural population was 50%, in 1990 - 29%), as well as to the transformation of peasants from small farmers working for the market into agricultural workers.
After the restoration of capitalism in Russia, in the 90s of the 20th century, the property of agricultural enterprises - collective farms - was divided into shares. And, it would seem, the peasant petty-bourgeois farms should have revived ... It was not so!
What place does the peasantry as a class occupy in contemporary Russian society?
Before answering this question, it is necessary to recall Lenin's definition of classes: “Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relation (mostly fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are such groups of people, of which one can appropriate the labor of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy. " (V. I. Lenin, "Great Initiative", Collected Works, vol. 39, p. 15)
Here is what Lenin wrote about the difference between workers and peasants: “The worker has no means of production and sells himself, his hands, his labor power. The peasant has the means of production - tools, livestock, land, his own or rented - and sells the products of his economy, being a small proprietor, a small entrepreneur, a petty bourgeois ”. (VI Lenin "Trudoviks and Workers' Democracy", Collected Works, vol. 21, p. 269)
Let's remember this and turn to the available statistics.
According to the Federal State Statistics Service, in 2006 the permanent population of the Russian Federation averaged 143,049,637 people per year, of which: urban - 104775157, rural - 38274480. In 2014, the permanent population of the Russian Federation averaged 146,090,613 people per year, of them: urban - 108062992, rural - 38027621.
In 1990, the share of the rural population was 29%, in 2006 - 26.8%, in 2014 - 26% of the total population of the country. The share of the rural population continues to decline.
According to the results of the All-Russian Agricultural Census 2006:
The number of employees of agricultural enterprises was 3167.4 thousand people:
- Agricultural organizations type 2 (large and medium): 2381.5 (75.2%).
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) economy: 83.3 (2.6%).
- Small agricultural enterprises: 232.4 (7.3%).
- Peasant (private) households and individual entrepreneurs: 470.2 (14.8%).
The number of farms (enterprises), including 22799.4 thousand personal subsidiary plots, amounted to 23224 thousand, of which:
- Type 2 agricultural organizations (large and medium-sized): 27.8 thousand - the average number of employees is 121 people.
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) economy: 32 thousand - the average number of employees is 4 people.
- Small agricultural enterprises: 20.4 thousand - the average number of employees is 18 people.
- Peasant (private) farms and individual entrepreneurs: 253.1 thousand - the average number of employees is 4 people.
In total, 3167.4 thousand people are employed, which is 8.3% of the rural population and about 4.5% of the total working-age population of Russia in 2006. 75% of workers are employed in large and medium-sized agricultural enterprises and only about 18% are employed in farms that can be called peasant (individual entrepreneurs and farms). Even if we do not take into account that among these workers there are proletarians and semi-proletarians and consider them all peasants, petty bourgeois, their numerical share is less than 1/5 of those employed in agricultural production and less than 1% of the able-bodied population.
According to the results of the same All-Russian Agricultural Census of 2006:
The total land area is 450599.5 thousand hectares, the sown area is 74857.1 thousand hectares, of which by farms:
- Agricultural enterprises type 2 (large and medium): 329666.3 and 49543.9 (66.2%).
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) economy: 3398 and 1337.6 (1.8%).
- Small agricultural enterprises: 76296.6 and 8503.9 (11.4%).
- Peasant (private) households and individual entrepreneurs: 25972.8 and 11590 (15.5%).
- Personal subsidiary and other individual farms of citizens: 2795 (3.7%).
The number of cattle is 23514.2 thousand heads, of which:
- Agricultural enterprises type 2 (large and medium): 10454.7 (44.5%).
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) economy: 121.4 (0.5%).
- Small agricultural enterprises: 692.3 (2.9%)
- Peasant (private) households and individual entrepreneurs: 858.1 (3.6%).
- Personal subsidiary and other individual farms of citizens: 11299.4 (48.1%).
Including the number of dairy cattle is 22652 thousand heads, of which:
- Agricultural enterprises type 2 (large and medium): 10040.6 (44.3%).
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) economy: 111.4 (0.5%).
- Small agricultural enterprises: 643 (2.8%).
- Peasant (private) farms and individual entrepreneurs: 738.2 (3.3%).
- Personal subsidiary and other individual farms of citizens: 11046.6 (48.8%).
Even according to these incomplete data, it can be seen that the share of large and medium-sized farms is 3.5 times more acreage and 10 times more cattle, respectively, and their share in agricultural production is much higher than the share of farms and individual entrepreneurs. (True, these data also show that almost half of the milk and beef is produced on the personal subsidiary plots of the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat.)
Based on this, it can be argued that large and medium-sized enterprises prevail in agricultural production in Russia. As a result, hired workers - agricultural workers - dominate in agricultural production. The class of the petty bourgeoisie (peasants, farmers, individual entrepreneurs) does not occupy a decisive place either numerically or in terms of its share in agricultural production. This means that the Soviets in rural areas will be able to rely primarily on the workers of agricultural industrial enterprises, and not on the petty bourgeoisie - the peasants - as in 1917.
“The farmer-owner belongs to the same class with the manufacturer or artisan-owner, with the merchant-owner; the difference here is not between classes, but between professions. The agricultural wage worker belongs to the same class as the factory and commercial wage worker, ”writes Lenin. (VI Lenin, "Trudoviks and Workers' Democracy", Collected Works, vol. 21, p. 270)
Unfortunately, the confusion of modern statistics makes it impossible to show the share of the participation of the urban petty bourgeoisie in modern industrial production. But there is no great need for this either: “This is the usual picture in all capitalist countries. The number of small establishments is decreasing: the petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors go bankrupt and perish, move into the ranks of employees, sometimes proletarians "(VI Lenin," Concentration of Production in Russia ", Collected Works, vol. 22, p. 42).
So what are the class forces in Russia now?
“The bourgeoisie with the landlords, the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie, the small proprietors, first of all the peasantry — these are the three main“ forces ”into which Russia is divided, like any capitalist country. Here are three main "forces" that have long been shown in every capitalist country (and in Russia) not only by scientific economic analysis, but also by the political experience of the entire recent history of all countries, the experience of all European revolutions since the 18th century, the experience of the two Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 ". (V.I. Lenin, "Will the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?", Collected Works, vol. 34, pp. 326-327)
Well, at least one of the forces - the petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry - has significantly decreased in number, while the other, the proletariat, has increased, turning from millions and tens of millions into thousands and tens of thousands. This intensifies and exacerbates the long-standing contradiction between the exploiters and the exploited, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between the capitalist class and the working class.
Only the struggle of the working class for the realization of its fundamental interests, for the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the building of a classless society can resolve this contradiction, put an end to it.
It might be helpful to read:
- Temporary difficulties and the constancy of temporality;
- Ernest Hemingway - sayings, quotes, sayings There are things worse than war cowardice;
- Sayings of Mohammed Ali Sayings of Muhammad Ali about gays;
- The happiest people on Earth: features and interesting facts;
- Indecisive and insecure;
- How to superimpose one picture on another in Photoshop?;
- Post an ad on Avito with registration for free;
- Successful passport photo: secrets and tips;