A hundred years ago Russian empire was one of the five largest imperialist states and, at the same time, a country whose rural population was about 85%, as well as a state that preserved a relic 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 too tight for it and was in the way.

The First Imperialist War accelerated the fall of the Tsarist regime in February 1917. “Millions and tens of millions, politically asleep for ten years, politically beaten down by the terrible oppression of tsarism and hard labor for landowners and factory owners, woke up and reached out to politics. Who are these millions and tens of millions? Mostly small owners, 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 what Lenin wrote in April 1917 (V.I. Lenin, “Tasks of the proletariat in our revolution”, PSS, 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 satisfy the demands of these millions and tens of millions of workers.

The struggle of this mass of workers for their fundamental interests led to the socialist revolution in October 1917.
“What classes does the Russian working mass consist of? Everyone knows that they are from workers and peasants. Which one is in the majority? Peasants. Who are these peasants in terms of their class position? Small owners or housewives,” wrote Lenin even before October revolution. (V.I. Lenin, “One of the fundamental questions”, PSS, 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 to be a Republic of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. All power in the center and locally belongs to these Soviets,” the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1925 notes that all power belongs to “the councils of workers, peasants, Cossacks and Red Army deputies.”

The Soviet Republic restored and developed industry in the city and at the same time helped peasants unite into large agricultural enterprises - collective farms - by sending representatives of the working class, equipment, and creating machine and tractor stations to help.

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, peasant petty-bourgeois farms should have been revived... But it was not so!
What place in modern Russian society What does the peasantry occupy as a class?

Before answering this question, we need to remember Lenin’s definition of classes: “Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in history. specific system social production, according to their relationship (mostly fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, according to 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 groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.” (V.I. Lenin, “The Great Initiative”, PSS, vol. 39, p. 15)

Here is what V.I. Lenin wrote about the difference between workers and peasants: “The worker does not have any 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 farm, being a small owner, a small entrepreneur, a petty bourgeois.” (V.I. Lenin “Workers and workers’ democracy”, PSS, vol. 21, p. 269)

Let's remember this and turn to the available statistics.

According to Federal service state statistics in 2006 permanent population Russian Federation the annual average was 143,049,637 people, of which: urban - 10,477,5157, rural - 38,274,480. In 2014, the permanent population of the Russian Federation on average per year was 1,46,090,613 people, of which: urban - 10,806,2992, rural - 38,027,621.

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 decrease.

According to the results of the All-Russian Agricultural Census of 2006:
The number of workers in 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) enterprise: 83.3 (2.6%).
- Small agricultural organizations: 232.4 (7.3%).
- Peasant (farm) farms 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:
- Agricultural organizations type 2 (large and medium): 27.8 thousand - average number of employees 121 people.
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) enterprise: 32 thousand - the average number of employees is 4 people.
- Small agricultural organizations: 20.4 thousand - average number of employees 18 people.
- Peasant (farm) farms and individual entrepreneurs: 253.1 thousand - average number of employees 4 people.
Total employment is 3167.4 thousand people, which is 8.3% of the rural population and approximately 4.5% of the total working 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 we consider them all peasants, petty bourgeois, then their numerical share is less than 1/5 of those employed in agricultural production and less than 1% of the working population.

According to the results of the same All-Russian Agricultural Census of 2006:
The total land area is 450599.5 thousand hectares, the cultivated area is 74857.1 thousand hectares, of which by farm:
- Agricultural organizations type 2 (large and medium): 329666.3 and 49543.9 (66.2%).
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) enterprise: 3398 and 1337.6 (1.8%).
- Small agricultural organizations: 76296.6 and 8503.9 (11.4%).
- Peasant (farm) households and individual entrepreneurs: 25972.8 and 11590 (15.5%).
- Personal subsidiary plots and other individual farms of citizens: 2795 (3.7%).
The number of cattle is 23514.2 thousand heads, of which:
- Agricultural organizations type 2 (large and medium): 10454.7 (44.5%).
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) enterprise: 121.4 (0.5%).
- Small agricultural organizations: 692.3 (2.9%).
- Peasant (farm) 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 22,652 thousand heads, of which:
- Agricultural organizations type 2 (large and medium): 10040.6 (44.3%).
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) enterprise: 111.4 (0.5%).
- Small agricultural organizations: 643 (2.8%).
- Peasant (farm) households and individual entrepreneurs: 738.2 (3.3%).
- Personal subsidiary plots and other individual farms of citizens: 11046.6 (48.8%).

Even from these incomplete data, it is clear that the share of large and medium-sized farms accounts for 3.5 times more sown areas 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 private plots of the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat.)

Based on this, it can be argued that large and medium-sized enterprises predominate in agricultural production in Russia. And as a result, agricultural production is dominated by hired workers - agricultural workers. The petty bourgeoisie class (peasants, farmers, individual entrepreneurs) does not occupy a decisive place either numerically or in terms of share in agricultural production. This means that the Soviets in rural areas will be able to rely primarily on workers of agricultural industrial enterprises, and not on the petty bourgeoisie - 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 trade wage worker,” writes Lenin. (V.I. Lenin, “Workers and workers’ democracy”, PSS, vol. 21, p. 270)
Unfortunately, the complexity of modern statistics does not allow us to show the share of participation of the urban petty bourgeoisie in modern industrial production. But there is no great need for this: “This is the usual picture in all capitalist countries. The number of small establishments is decreasing: the petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors are going bankrupt and dying, moving into the ranks of employees, sometimes proletarians” (V.I. Lenin, “Concentration of Production in Russia”, PSS, vol. 22, p. 42).

So what are the class forces in Russia now?

“The bourgeoisie with the landowners, the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie, small owners, and primarily the peasantry—these are the three main “forces” into which Russia, like any capitalist country, is divided. Here are the three main “forces” that have long been shown in every capitalist country (and in Russia) not only by scientific economic analysis, but by the political experience of the whole modern history of all countries, the experience of all European revolutions since the 18th century, the experience of two Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917.” (V.I. Lenin, “Will the Bolsheviks hold 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 strengthens and aggravates 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 construction of a classless society, can resolve this contradiction, put an end to it.

Reasons for unprofitability Agriculture in developed countries or how peasants were madeagriculturalslaves

A grain thrown into the ground produces one ear. An ear contains from 10 to 80 grains, depending on the plant. That is, for 1 part of the costs there will be 9-79 parts of income. Which, translated into economic language, is 900-7900 percent of profit. Even taking into account the fact that a third of the seeds will not sprout, the profit is 300 - 2000 percent. Net profit. That is why Robinson Crusoe planted a few grains and a year later provided himself with a comfortable life. That is why in ancient times agriculture was always 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 many past centuries. Agriculture, by definition, cannot be unprofitable if you know well surrounding nature and abide by its laws. It has always been like this! Therefore, living on land meant having a stable income for your family. But since the times 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 simply removed him for bad work. In the USSR, agriculture was actually unprofitable, despite all the experiments in the countryside. And it's not about collective farms. The 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 not this one main reason unprofitability of collective farms. Because agriculture is also unprofitable in the USA and Europe and in all technically developed countries. This can be seen throughout the twentieth century. And even now farmers are suffering losses from running their farms. 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 of past centuries with those of the twentieth century. When agriculture was profitable, then:

public life

happy life

I gave an example of how agriculture in past centuries differed from modern agriculture. But let me remind you once again of the main features of modern rural farming in developed countries. They are the same for all technically developed countries. Because intensive farming methods are now used, which deplete the land, destroy nature and the health of people (both rural and urban residents). So, what is modern agriculture like in developed countries?

-- Sowing occurs with the help of machines. This means that the farmer depends on: 1. gasoline prices. 2. on tractor prices. 3. from the delivery of spare parts. As a result, the village ceased to be self-sufficient. It can be easily ruined and sent around the world. In fact, the village has been turned into rural slaves who constantly work to pay for the cost of equipment and the cost of houses, and to repay loans. Virtually all farms take out loans for sowing. But that means they feed banks and factories (which build tractors, combines, make spare parts, produce gas stations). Virtually all the world's farms are in debt bondage. That is, they are slaves who must constantly work to pay their debts. So agriculture becomes unprofitable even after sowing. As we see, the use of modern 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 rural areas. It used to be like this: a young family in a village was given free land, they built a house for free and helped them plant a garden, and they gave them a foal, kittens, a puppy, a calf.... As a result, people lived happily. Now everyone has been turned into slaves: a young family will be given a house, but they will have to work for 5-15 years. This is simply a form of modern slavery. And I generally consider the creation of unemployment in rural areas to be a crime.

I gave an example of the unprofitability of agriculture using only the example of sowing grain crops. In fact, everything also happens with the raising of animals and birds and with all other types of rural activities. Thus, the modern method of producing food and goods in rural areas using machines and fertilizers cannot be profitable, but is always unprofitable for three reasons:

And the destruction of morality leads to the destruction of statehood. This is where the roots of corruption come from in all developed countries. Because no one can be sure that tomorrow he will not be left without a piece of bread. Even officials are afraid that their families may lose a roof over their heads and livelihoods. But initially people in the villages lived happily. And there was no corruption precisely because everyone could grow everything they needed for their family. And the more a person lived amicably 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 their parents in the village. People in trouble were helped not by social services, but by the rural community or their peasant neighbor. Because as long as 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, peasants used only old-fashioned methods of agriculture. Fortunately, there were no tractors, no combines, no cars at that time. That is why the village was revived after devastation civil war in just three or four years of the NEP. For a country to prosper, its people must be moral and healthy. As it was in tsarist Russia and ancient Rus' from the time before the arrival of Rurik. Because even before our era, historians wrote about the rich lands of Rus' and a strong people. And this cannot be done with unprofitable agriculture. It was from the village that the saying “what goes around comes around comes around!” came from the village. That's why we lived the best friendly families and friendly villages where moral laws have been observed from time immemorial. Because Russian culture goes back thousands of years. Lomonosov also wrote that to the Slavic people at least 40 thousand years. With unprofitable agriculture, people die out in one generation. And we have lived for so many millennia and only now are we starting to die out. Why? Because they began to violate the moral laws that their ancestors used to have. As one Russian pilot said in our time, “An airplane is a creation of man. And a horse is a creation of God. It is more perfect. That’s why we fly on airplanes, but to restore our health we ride horses.” Therefore, in order for agriculture to become profitable again, it must be returned to ancient methods extensive ecological clean farming and livestock farming. But this will not be enough. Because in ancient times nature was not so destroyed. Now it is necessary to restore nature everywhere and especially plant forests. Because the forest prevents soil erosion from developing, creates a humid microclimate good for agriculture, and because the forest itself is the breadwinner for the nearby villages. It is also necessary to protect rivers and lakes and clean them. Whereas in ancient times, water could be drunk not after boiling, but simply from a river or stream. How this is still preserved in some areas of Siberia, where modern technology has not yet had time to visit. And children who communicate 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 harvester, no matter how much you take care of it and please it, in ten years or less it will fall apart and you will not be able to reproduce it. Harvesters, like laptops, do not reproduce! Therefore, you will have to buy everything again! And again, buying on credit means living like a slave in debt! Forward to the past!!! TO To the origins! P.S. 1. What is happening in the former USSR after 91 can be called a humane genocide of the peoples of Russia. To take over a country there is no need to fight and physically destroy the people. You can replace moral values and the people will die out. For this purpose, ideas are introduced into young people. For example, propaganda of sexual minorities and tolerance towards same-sex families (women live with women, and men with men). The idea of humanity in relation to this 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 within 30 years. And you can seize all his land and material and without any war. Because children are not born from same-sex love. The people will grow old, and no one will be able to defend the land from invaders. This is a form of humane genocide of the people. A less humane genocide is the propaganda 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 firing a single shot. All this is done simply through films, books and songs. No violence. Simply propaganda of new ideas is a substitution of the moral values of the people. As an example, in the 90s, psychologists said that the heroes of Western action films contradict Russian culture. Their heroes are the same bandits. The culture in films and books is aggressive and immoral. The same thing was said about Western cartoons. Now compare: how much the population of the USSR decreased in the early 90s. A form of humane genocide through the substitution of the moral values and culture of the people. Almost every schoolchild knows how to break dance, but almost no one knows how to dance hopak or Russian dance. Because it's not fashionable! But fashion is dictated by the media. And hopak and Russian dance are the dance of our ancestors. It contains the prowess of the Russian people and strength and beauty. Its movements are much smoother, beautiful and complex compared to breakdancing. But Russian schoolchildren breakdance. Although the break itself appeared in the 80s as a dance of robots. Unlike Russian culture, it carries within itself aggressiveness and resembles the dance of African warriors. The same sudden movements and aggressive behavior. Culture changes and people die out. No violence. A fool doesn't need a knife - you can tell him a lot of lies and do whatever you want with him!

Rudyard Kipling once said, “The less technologically advanced a country is, the more beautiful its women.” Beauty is an indicator of health. A healthy animal is always beautiful. God arranged it this way. The same with a person. In the 17th century, Western travelers wrote about Russia: “The Russian people are beautiful and healthy and do not need doctors.” A lot of time has passed since then. Beauty still remains in Russian villages. Because fortunately, not everyone has switched to a new developed way of life like in Europe.

Peasant, agricultural worker turned debt slave

The first letter is "p"

Second letter "e"

Third letter "o"
The last letter of the letter is "n"

Answer for the question "A peasant, an agricultural worker who turned into a debt slave", 4 letters:

peon

Alternative crossword questions for the word peon

Verse meter

Agricultural worker in Latin America

Poetic foot

Definition of the word peon in dictionaries

Wikipedia Meaning of the word in the Wikipedia dictionary
Peon - 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
PEO (Greek paion) poetic meter formed by 4-syllable feet; Depending on which syllable of the foot the strong place falls on, the 1st peon (on the 1st syllable of the foot), 2nd, 3rd and 4th are distinguished. In Russian syllabic-tonic verse the 2nd and 3rd peons appear...

New explanatory and word-formative dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova. The meaning of the word in the dictionary New explanatory dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova.
m. Four-syllable poetic foot of the ancient metric of one stressed 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 people worked on the construction of the road. peons, they were all newcomers - from Ayacucho, Apurimac, especially many people came from Huancayo and Concepcion, in the province of Junin.

Pedro, having examined her, seriously advised her to be taken to the hut for the night and guarded vigilantly: who knows if some The last letter of the letter is "n" from the nearest hacienda, would you like to feast on it?

The population of this planet is divided into two main groups: one group is the Free, the other unites grabens, sincs and peons.

But when the music floats from the sea and spreads over the fort, over the schooners and boats and speaks of love, Guma forgets about everything and surrenders his soul only to this beautiful, soothing, smooth peone.

God has expressed his will, and The last letter of the letter is "n" headed towards the plot, where Groom was already banging his ax.

Medieval Europe was very different from modern civilization: its territory was covered with forests and swamps, and people settled in spaces where they could cut down trees, drain swamps and engage in farming. How did 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, until the advent of the modern era, and refers mainly to 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 method of production.

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

Dependence of peasants on feudal lords

The rich lord received ownership of all the lands surrounding the castle, on which villages with peasants were located. Almost everything that 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, and a grape press. They paid the tax natural products: grain, honey, wine.

All peasants were highly dependent on their feudal lord; they practically worked for him as slave labor, eating what was left after growing the crop, most of which was given to their master and the church.

Wars periodically occurred 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.

Division of peasants into groups

To understand how peasants lived in the Middle Ages, you need to understand the relationship between the feudal lord and the poor residents who lived in villages in the areas adjacent to the castle and cultivated plots of land.

The tools of peasant labor in the fields in the Middle Ages were primitive. The poorest harrowed the ground with a log, others with a harrow. Later, scythes and pitchforks made of iron appeared, as well as shovels, axes and rakes. From the 9th century, heavy wheeled plows began to be used in the fields, and plows were used on light soils. Sickles and threshing chains were used for harvesting.

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 feudal relations between rich lords and the impoverished peasantry. This situation was formed on the ruins of ancient society, in which slavery existed, which clearly manifested itself during the era of the Roman Empire.

The rather difficult conditions of how peasants lived in the Middle Ages, the deprivation of their land plots and property, often caused protests, which were expressed in various forms. Some desperate people 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 fix the size of duties in order to stop their endless growth and reduce the discontent of the poor people.

The end of the Middle Ages and the slave life of peasants

As the economy grew and manufacturing emerged towards the end of the Middle Ages, industrial revolution, many village residents began to move to cities. Among the poor population and representatives of other classes, humanistic views began to prevail, which considered personal freedom for each person an important goal.

As you give up feudal system An era called the New Time arrived, in which there was no longer any place for outdated relationships between peasants and their lords.