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

Farmhand in Mexico

South American farmhand

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 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 peon 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 peon headed towards the plot, where Groom was already banging his ax.

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 the surrounding nature well and comply with its laws. It has always been like this! Therefore, to live on earth meant to have 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 this is not the main reason for the unprofitability of collective farms. Because agriculture is also unprofitable in the USA 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 running their farms. It is more profitable not to work than to work. So what's the matter? 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:

- plowing was done manually or on horseback. Horses, unlike harvesters, reproduce. Therefore, if you treat animals with care, 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, or maybe a whole herd of healthy, strong horses. Also with manual labor. The larger the family, the richer it lives. Because there are many helpers. Sitting by hand is very simple and can be done by both an old man and a small child. A child or an old man cannot sow a field on a tractor. The cost of tools for plowing and sowing in past centuries was small compared to the cost of a modern combine. Just 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 the king's decrees on taxes and taxes. Thus, plowing and sowing were easier and cheaper than now. Labor costs were lower in agriculture and there was independence from prices for gasoline, parts, strikes and other city problems. It is the introduction of industrial technology in agriculture that ruins the village. Tractors are very expensive, require constant maintenance, and they do not reproduce and will never reproduce. -- The harvest was cared for manually. Is it hard work? Not very good for a healthy person. Such work improved health. Caring for equipment destroys your health. And the use of pesticides destroys both nature and the health of the villagers. This means that the village and the townspeople are being destroyed. This is as stupid as building a lead water pipeline in Rome. Everything became “civilized” and beautiful, only the Romans began to die out. Previously, they drank clean water in wells and streams. And then they started drinking lead-poisoned tap water. Rome has deteriorated. It’s the same with villages now. Manual labor taught friendly work and improved health. The Russian invincible army consisted of ninety percent peasants and Cossacks (the same peasants, only trained to fight from childhood). -- Harvesting was done manually or using horses. Therefore, the costs for cleaning were small: feeding the horses and people and sharpening the sickle. A sickle costs a million times less than a combine harvester. And any family can buy a sickle and scythe from a blacksmith. In general, the more workers there are in a family, the richer it lives. The more friendly the rural community, the better the village lived. Proof? All roads used to be built by peasants. They financed the construction of roads themselves. What farmer or collective farm can finance and build a road now? The use of combine harvesters is simply ruinous for the village. Harvesters do not reproduce. In addition, the work requires three types of machines: a tractor (for plowing), a machine (for transporting people and goods), and a combine harvester (for harvesting). Previously, all these jobs were performed by horses and people. This means that expenses in rural areas have increased hundreds, and maybe tens of thousands of times. That is why 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 usually occurs 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 structured in such a way that it prepares a child for life in the city, and not in nature. They teach him about stocks, pension funds, higher mathematics and other nonsense that are not needed in order to grow bread... And before, peasants taught children the knowledge of herbs, caring for horses and other animals, crafts, knowledge of the peculiarities of the local climate and various subtleties of family and public life. As a result, a child of 14 years old 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. Nowadays, it’s a rare graduate of a vocational school or university who can live in nature himself; it turns out that the person spent several years of his life, but does not know how to do what every child could do in ancient times. And therefore he simply cannot conduct business well in rural areas. And as a result, the graduate remains to live in the city. Simply put, village children are taught what they do not need to happy life on the ground. So 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 unified standard of education is one of the reasons for the extinction of villages and the departure of young people from villages to the city. I was in a rural school in Russia. There's a list there prestigious professions in the class: programmer, manager, bank worker, ..... I don’t remember the list exactly, but there wasn’t a single one rural profession. There wasn’t even a beekeeper on the list, although even in the USSR beekeepers lived well. It turns out that even in rural schools, children are told 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 unified standard of education in Russia and other developed countries has led to countries. The Indians don't have such nonsense. Therefore, the Indians of North America do not die out, but continue to live. Just like Russian Old Believers villages in the USA and Canada. They still live as richly as they lived under the Tsar.

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, 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. -- Caring for the crop with automatic watering and fertilizers is more expensive than manual labor and horses. And besides, the harvest grown in this way is much worse in quality. This means that both villagers and city dwellers with this method of production simply destroy their health, the health of their children and the health of those who buy their products. -- Harvesting using combines. Combines and spare parts for them are expensive. In addition, the fewer children there are, the less worries there are for the farm worker. Because children cannot participate in the modern mode of production rural products. This means that even the villagers existing system farmers 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 farm 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 we 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 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, modern way The production of food and goods in rural areas using machines and fertilizers cannot be profitable, but is always unprofitable for three reasons:

-- The use of machinery and fertilizers and deep plowing methods destroys the nature and health of villagers and townspeople. As a result, people become sick and unable to work well. This means there will be no quality work. Patients cannot work well. -- It is economically unprofitable for a peasant to conduct agriculture modern methods, since costs increase hundreds and thousands of times compared to ancient agricultural methods of past centuries. Therefore, the peasant will constantly be at a loss and the peasant becomes dependent on urban industries (factories, production of gasoline and motor 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 birth of children. And looking at injustice, people learn immorality and lies.

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 agricultural methods. Fortunately, there were no tractors, no combines, no cars at that time. That is why the village was revived after the devastation of the 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 the Slavic people are at least 40 thousand years old. 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. So we have established the reasons for the unprofitability of agriculture in all developed countries. How to make it profitable. First, we need to restore nature and forests. Where there is a forest, the people are healthy and the land is not depleted. Modern technology can and should be used to restore nature. Because there are not enough horses right now. Secondly, it is necessary to change the education system in rural schools and in the city. People must know ecology, local herbs and know about ecological farming methods - in fact, these are those old-fashioned methods only taking into account our time. These are extensive farming methods. In Europe they were well shown by Sepp Holzer, who wrote the book “The Agrarian Revolutionary”. In it, he talks about his farming, where he uses old farming methods from past centuries. 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, his farm has created closed ecosystems, just like in nature. Therefore, only in the initial period does he bear the costs of creating these cycles on his land, and then the created farm services itself without any equipment or fertilizers. About the creation of such ecosystems and methods natural farming spoken in the books of Vladimir Megre as a way to get out of the economic crisis. That is, simply give people land to create their own family estate, as it was in ancient times in Rus', and not impose taxes on the land and products from such an estate. Then each family will be provided with quality products, their own water, build their own house and live happily. And the surplus products will be sold to the city. As was the case in Tsarist Russia, in which peasants sold only excess food to the city. But this was enough to export it abroad. It is now necessary to create equestrian clubs in villages and cities. Because this will allow us to quickly breed horses for the needs of villages and cities. This will give interesting activity for children. And this will improve the health of children and adults. Driving a car is harmful to health at any age, but horse riding usually brings only benefits. And it's safer. While people rode horses, there were not so many deaths and disabilities after collisions with equipment. 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, if handled carefully, 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! Return to the ancient ecological system land use as it was in Rus' 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 strong Russian village that fed the city and sent honey and grain and other goods to Europe. Forward to the past!!! TO To the origins! P.S. 1. What is happening in space former USSR after 91 years it 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 natural resources 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. 5

One 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,” 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 the 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.

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

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 a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role V public organization labor, and therefore, 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)

This is what V.I. Lenin wrote about the difference between workers and peasants: “The worker has no means of production and sells himself, his hands, his labor. 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 121 employees.
- 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:
General 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%).
Large livestock 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 farms and individual entrepreneurs. (However, these data also show that almost half of the milk and beef is produced in private subsidiary farms 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 employees- 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 agricultural workers 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 scientifically economic analysis, but also the political experience of the entire modern 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 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.

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 gifted their vassals with lands on which they built estates or castles for themselves. 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, presses for crushing grapes. They paid the tax in natural products: grain, honey, wine.

All peasants were strongly dependent on their feudal lord; practically they worked for him as slave labor, eating what was left after growing the crops, most of from which she was given to her 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 the feudal system was abandoned, an era called the New Time came, in which there was no longer any place for outdated relationships between peasants and their lords.