The reasons for the unprofitableness of agriculture in developed countries or how the peasants 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"

The answer to the question "Peasant, agricultural worker turned into a debt slave", 4 letters:
peon

Alternative crossword questions for peon

Verse meter

A farm laborer in Mexico

South American farm laborer

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 - 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 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 pounding with an ax.

Reasons for loss Agriculture in developed countries or how they made peasantsagriculturalslaves.

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 seeds 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 rural products to warmer Europe for many centuries past. Agriculture, by definition, cannot be unprofitable if you know the surrounding nature well and follow its laws. It has always been this way! Therefore, to live on earth meant to have 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 it for bad job... 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 is subordinate to the authorities as a combat 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 United States 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 something that 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 horseback. 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 harvester. 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 it is now. Labor costs were less in agriculture and there was independence from the price of gasoline, 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's hard work? Not very good for a healthy person. Such work strengthened health. Caring for 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 us to work together and strengthened our health. The invincible Russian army consisted of ninety percent of peasants and Cossacks (the same peasants, trained to fight only 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. Proof? 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. Now training rural labor occurs 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. They teach him stocks, 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, craft, knowledge of the local climate and various subtleties of 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 spent several years of his life, and does not know what every child could do in ancient times. And so he simply cannot do business well in countryside... As a result, the graduate remains to live in the city. Simply put, village children are taught what they don't need to happy life on the ground. 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. A single 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's a list hanging there prestigious professions in the classroom: 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." countries. The Indians don't have such nonsense. Therefore the Indians 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.
I gave an example of how agriculture differed in the past centuries from the modern one. But let me remind once again the main features of a modern rural economy in developed countries. They are the same for all technically advanced countries. Because now intensive farming methods are used that deplete the land, destroy the nature and health of people (both rural and urban). So what is modern agriculture in developed countries?
    - 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 must constantly work to pay debts. So agriculture becomes unprofitable even after sowing. - Harvest care with automatic irrigation and fertilization is more expensive 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 harvesters. Combines and spare parts are expensive. In addition, the fewer children, 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, under the existing farming system, are interested in having few children. As a result, the 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.
As you can see, the use of the modern method of land use not only destroys nature, but also turns peasants into slaves and leads to the extinction of villages. In addition, the use of combines, tractors and other agricultural machinery creates unemployment in the countryside. It used to be like this: a young family in the village was given land for free, they built a house for free and helped to plant a garden and gave a foal, kittens, a puppy, a calf ... As a result, people lived happily. Now everyone has been turned into slaves: the young family will be given a house, but it will work for 5-15 years. It's just a form of modern slavery. And I generally consider the creation of unemployment in the countryside a crime. I gave an example of unprofitable agriculture using the example of only sowing grain crops. In fact, everything is the same with the raising of animals and birds and with all other types of rural activities. Thus, modern way production of food and goods in rural areas using machinery and fertilizers cannot be profitable, but always unprofitable for three reasons:
      - 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. The sick cannot work well. - It is economically unprofitable for a peasant to farm on modern methods, since the costs grow 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, which means it creates injustice. This leads to an increase in crime and drug addiction and drunkenness and a decrease in the number of children. And looking at the injustice, the people learn immorality and lies.
And the destruction of morality leads to the destruction of statehood. This is where the roots of corruption go in all developed countries. Because no one can be sure that tomorrow he will not be left without a piece of bread. Even officials fear that their families may lose their roof over their heads and livelihoods. But initially people in the villages lived happily. And there was no corruption precisely because everyone could grow up everything they needed for their family. And the more a person lived in harmony with those around him, the more stable the future of him and his family was. Therefore, people did not need pensions. Grateful children took care of the parents in the village. People in trouble were not helped by social services, but by a rural community or a peasant neighbor. Because while agriculture was profitable, the peasants lived richly. As an example, we can recall the NEP in the USSR. In just a few years, the peasants raised the country. But during the NEP, the peasants used only the old-fashioned methods of agriculture. Fortunately, then there were no tractors, no harvesters, no cars. Therefore, the village was revived after the devastation of the civil war in just three or four years of the NEP. For a country to flourish, its people must be moral and healthy. As it was in tsarist Russia and ancient Russia from the time before the arrival of Rurik. Because even before our era, historians wrote about the rich lands of Russia and a strong people. And this cannot be done with unprofitable agriculture. It was from the village that the saying went "what you sow, you reap!" Therefore, friendly families and friendly villages lived best of all, where moral laws were observed from time immemorial. Because the culture of Russia goes back thousands of years. Even Lomonosov wrote that the Slavic people are at least 40 thousand years old. With unprofitable agriculture, the people die out in one generation. And we have lived for so many millennia and have only now begun to die out. Why? Because they began to violate the moral laws that the ancestors used to have. So we have established the reasons for the unprofitableness of agriculture in all developed countries. How to make it profitable. First, we need to restore nature and forests. Where there is a forest, people are healthy and the land is not depleted. To restore nature, you can and should use modern technology. There are not enough horses now. Secondly, it is necessary to change the education system in rural schools and in the city. People should definitely know the ecology, local herbs and know about the methods of ecological farming - in fact, these are the old-fashioned methods only taking into account our time. These are methods of extensive farming. In Europe, they were well shown by Sepp Holzer, who wrote the book "The Revolutionary Agrarian". In it, he talks about his farming, where he applies old farming methods of yesteryear. And his farming is more profitable than other farmers who use modern intensive farming methods. Sepp Holzer economically proved the correctness of the actions of our ancestors in the countryside. In addition, closed ecosystems have been created in his farm as in nature. Therefore, only at the initial period, he bears the costs of creating these cycles on his land, and then the created economy serves itself without any equipment and fertilizers. About creating such ecosystems and methods natural farming it is spoken in the books of Vladimir Megre as a way to get out of economic crisis... That is, simply to give people land to create their own family estate, as it was in antiquity in Russia, and not to tax land and products from such an estate. Then each family will be provided with quality food, their own water, build their own house and live happily. And surplus products will be sold to the city. As was the case in tsarist Russia, in which the peasants sold only surplus food to the city. But even this was enough to export it abroad. Horse clubs should now be created in villages and towns. Because this will allow you to quickly breed horses for the needs of the village and city. This will provide an interesting activity for children. And it will improve the health of children and adults. Riding a car is unhealthy at any age, and horse riding is usually only beneficial. And she's safer. While people were riding horses, there were not so many deaths and disabled people after collisions of equipment. As one Russian pilot said in our time, "An airplane is a creation of man. A horse is a creation of God. It is more perfect. Therefore, we fly on airplanes, but we ride horses to restore health." extensive ecological clean farming and animal husbandry. But this will not be enough. Because in antiquity, nature was not so destroyed. Now it is necessary to restore nature everywhere and especially to plant forests. Because the forest does not allow the development of soil erosion, creates a humid microclimate good for agriculture and because the forest itself is a breadwinner for the neighboring villages. It is also necessary to protect rivers and lakes and cleanse them. Whereas in ancient times, water can be drunk not after boiling, but simply from a river or stream. How is it still preserved in some regions of Siberia, where modern technology has not yet had time to visit. And children, communicating with animals, and not technology, will grow kinder. And the village will be able to buy several horses and with careful handling in ten years there will be a whole herd of horses in the village. But if you buy a combine, then how do not take care of it and please it, but in ten years or earlier it will fall apart and you will not be able to multiply it in any way. Harvesters, like laptops, do not multiply! Therefore, you will have to buy everything again! And again, buying on credit means living like a slave in debt! Return to Ancient ecological system land use as it was in Russia and will lead to the prosperity of the village. You can read about this in the books of Vladimir Megre and Sepp Holzer. This is the only way out of the economic crisis. Because when there is no work in the city, only the village can feed the people. Only not a modern dying village, but a Russian strong village, which fed the city and sent honey and grain and other goods to Europe. Forward to the past!!! TO Primary sources! P. S. 1. What is happening in space the former USSR after 91 years can be called a humane genocide of the peoples of Russia. To capture a country, you do not have to fight and physically destroy the people. You can replace moral values ​​and the people will die out. For this, ideas are being introduced into young people. For example, the promotion of sexual minorities and tolerance towards same-sex families (women live with women, and men with men). The idea of ​​humanity in relation to such a way of life is being introduced and even such a culture of behavior is being promoted in every possible way. As a result, the people who begin to live according to this way of life will die out in 30 years. And you can capture all his land and material and Natural resources without any war. Because children are not born of same-sex love. The people will grow old, and no one can defend the land from invaders. This is a form of humane genocide of the people. Less humane genocide is the promotion of immorality, drugs, alcohol and violence through the media and art. This is a less humane genocide, but the result is the same. The people will die out in 30-40 years and their vast land can be captured without a single shot. All this is done simply through films, books and songs. No violence. Just propaganda of new ideas, substitution of the moral values ​​of the people. As an example, in the 90s, psychologists said that the heroes of Western militants contradicted Russian culture. Their heroes are the same bandits. The culture in films and books is aggressive and immoral. The same was said about Western cartoons. Now compare: how much the population of the USSR decreased at the beginning of the 90s. A form of humane genocide through the substitution of the moral value and culture of the people. Almost every student knows how to dance a break, but almost no one knows how to dance a hopak or a Russian dance hall. Because it is not fashionable! But fashion is dictated by the media. And the hopak and Russian dance is the dance of our ancestors. It is the daring of the Russian people and strength and beauty. His movements are much smoother, beautiful and complex compared to braydancing. But Russian schoolchildren are dancing the break. Although the break itself appeared in the 80s as a dance of robots. Unlike Russian culture, he carries aggressiveness inside himself and resembles the dance of the warriors of Africa. The same sharp movement and aggressive behavior. The culture is changing and the people are dying out. No violence. You don't need a knife on a fool - you will lie to him with three boxes and do whatever you want with him! Rudyard Kipling once said, "The less technically advanced a country is, the more beautiful the women are." Beauty is an indicator of health. A healthy animal is always beautiful. This is how God arranged it. Also with a person. In the 17th century, Western travelers wrote about Russia "The Russian people are beautiful and healthy and do not need doctors." Much time has passed since then. Beauty still remains in Russian villages. Because fortunately, not everyone switched to a new, developed way of life like in Europe. 5

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 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 internecine wars, crusades and other military actions, kings endowed their vassals with lands on which they built their estates or castles. As a rule, the whole land was donated along with the people living on it.

Dependence of peasants on feudal lords

The wealthy lord received in possession all the lands 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 tax natural products: grain, honey, wine.

All the peasants were in strong dependence on their feudal lord, they practically worked for him in slave labor, eating 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 inhabitants who lived in the villages in the territories adjacent to the castle, cultivated land plots.

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, there were scythes and pitchforks made of iron, as well as shovels, axes and rakes. Since the 9th century, heavy wheeled plows have been used in the fields, and 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 with minimal costs.

Peasant discontent

The history of the Middle Ages is characterized by constant confrontation between 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 size of the duties in order to stop their endless growth and reduce the discontent of the poor people.

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.

With the abandonment of the feudal system, an era came, called the New Time, in which there was no longer a place for outdated relationships between peasants and their lords.

A 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 on the 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 who stand 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 laboring masses consist of? Everyone knows that they are workers and peasants. Which of them 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 questions", 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.

Development 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 modern 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 enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role v public organization 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 way public 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 force... 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 Federal Service state statistics in 2006 resident population Russian Federation the average for the year was 143,049,637 people, of which: urban - 104775157, rural - 38274480. In 2014, the permanent population of the Russian Federation on average for the year was 146,090,613 people, of which: 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 in agricultural enterprises was 3,167.4 thousand people:
- Agricultural enterprises type 2 (large and medium-sized): 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 (farming) 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 (farmer) households 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% - 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-sized): 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) farms and individual entrepreneurs: 25972.8 and 11590 (15.5%).
- Personal subsidiary and other individual farms of citizens: 2795 (3.7%).
Livestock of large 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 (farmer) 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 accounts for 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 milk and beef is produced in personal subsidiary plots 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, agricultural production is dominated by wage-earners- agricultural workers. 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 workers in agricultural industrial enterprises, and not on the petty bourgeoisie - the peasants - as in 1917.
“The farmer-owner belongs to the same class as 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 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 landowners, 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 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? ", PSS, 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: