Seems like these dudes hated the peasants and followed the cult of industrialization. And for so called socialists, they created institutions that refused to let the proletariat take power, and the only real means of the people having power is via democracy. The Soviet union was extremely undemocratic. Not to mention the collectivization process that Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky all supported at some point aimed to make the lives of the peasants(who constituted the vast majority of the population) much worse by essentially squeezing them out of the value of their grain and not letting them store grain in case of a bad harvest, which led to massive death tolls. Not to mention the persecution of the "kulaks" who were most often barely that much better off than the other peasants led to a deskilling of the peasant population which contributed to worse harvests. Peasants also sabotaged their own livestock as a fuck you to the Soviet establishment for making their lives so miserable. In fact up to the 1960's the most productive farms were actually small private farms in the Soviet Union, which although accounted for 3% of the total farms, produced 25% of agricultural output.
Work hours for the peasants increased and class distinctions were also further solidified by state bureaucrats essentially taking the place of the bourgeoisie. The cult of trying to bring industrialization by ruining the lives of a peasantry is something that cannot be justified and is completely against the ideas of communism which seeks to create a society in the best interests of the weak and oppressed. By excluding the peasants and sacrificing them these so called "communists" failed at their most important objective and thus were nothing more than bougie urbanites trying to enforce their ideal of modernity on others.
How can Leninists, Trotskyists, and Stalinists even dare to call themselves communists when the policies pursued by these people directly opposed the interests of the people that actually lived in the area of their rule?
I agree with you 100%. In fact, I could argue that the soviets were actually the ones who ended up pushing the world away from communism/socialism, because they were such a good example of what could go wrong.
Peasants are like 1-3% of population in developed countries. They have no relevance in class war in modern times and its one of the reasons why maoism is retarded.
Joseph Powell
Nah I would sat closer to 0%: most farmers today are either petit-bourgois, intravert family enterprises (voluntariat I guess?) or actualy proletarians working for a corporation. The landlord is dead outside of Actually existing aristocracies (and then even they are failing).
Evan Hughes
Educate yourself, brainlet.
Asher Ramirez
but in Tsarist Russia they were like 80% of the population though?
Matthew Turner
t. Kaczynski
Mason Cooper
Haha, fuck off, idealist. What were they supposed to do?! In your world, the peasants would have been SLAUGHTERED when the industrialized nations came to stop Communism, because they wouldn't have had guns, planes, tanks, missiles, etc… You're an idiot if you don't see industrialization as a necessity in the 21st century, or even in the 19th. Why would we want this? The weak are NOT revolutionary. This should be self-explanatory. The revolution is not going to be a soyboy uprising, it's not going to be an incel uprising. Let me repeat, the revolution is NOT going to be all the weak retards of the earth coming together for revolution. And now, of course, you immediately resort to a reductive view of class. The proletarian are the revolutionary class, but that doesn't mean that all proles are revolutionary. You think that the soldiers crushing Communist movements are revolutionaries? In your world, all proletarians join hands and make peace, and everyone rightfully laughs at you for having the mind of a five-year old. If the government was destroying Capitalism, I honestly couldn't care that the proles can't vote to bring Capitalism back. But by all means, feel free to prove that the Soviet Union was super undemocratic and evil. I'd go on but the rest is just you asserting things without evidence.
Brody Cooper
But if it's only about making a "concrete analysis of the current situation" why are maoists still so preoccupied with Mao's particular ideas such as People's War and New Democracy?
Isaiah Ortiz
For your information Kulak is not a peasant, it's money lender. Those people didn't work and lived criminal lifestyle.
Mhm…
My family on mother's side owned cattle and fruit tree back then, and under new laws, those were considered as a considerable wealth and therefore were taxed, so it was best to cut down the trees and kill cattle than getting ripped by inadequate taxes. It wasn't an act of saying "fuck you" to the government.
Leo Hall
I thought Kulak's were closer to being large farm property owners and landlords then money lenders
Blake Robinson
ITT petty bourgeois idealism
Joseph Fisher
In my small amount of knowledge on kulaks they always came off as Freemen like in medieval Europe. Being given rights to own property they were able to amass large amounts of land over a long period of time due to the vast majority of the population being serfs. After the abolition of serfdom in Russia the kulaks were able to buy up land freed up through small land reforms depriving the penniless former serfs and making them quasi-serfs. So petite-boug centered around large farms who were only slightly higher than the rest of the population during the Tsarist rule
Elijah Morales
In burgerland they've fallen into this due to the debt cycle. The actual land is owned by corporations and banks who then rent it back to the farmers
Zachary Robinson
Hmm…really makes me think
Kevin Young
The Soviets imposed a quota on the amount of kulaks that needed to be sent to the gulag so many kulaks were actually not much better off than the rest of the peasants. Also the peasants had communal farming systems before the collectivization and well to do farmers were socially expected to help out other peasants in the community so they dont starve, which they did.
The collectivization procedures essentially overworked the peasants and forced them to give away their stores of grain to the state and when drought hit, there was no emergency food supply for the peasant to subsist on which led to mass famine and starvation.
Like slavery, the industry built in the Soviet union was on the backs of millions of dead peasants. You cant call your movement representative of the people when its success depends on the exploitation of the weak.
Yet famine and starvation were common and widespread. Funny how that works. Peasants shouldn't even exist in an industrial society so I don't see your point.
Evan Hill
Because People's War is universally applicable and so is the mass line, these things work even without dialectical monism
Nathan Anderson
Huh?
Kayden Martin
Droughts are famines were nothing to the scale experienced during the initial Soviet era of 1917-1940. You'd have to go as far back as the 1600's to get famines that surpassed it. And even then in absolute numbers more people died in the initial Soviet era due to famine than before. It would never have been that bad had collectivization not existed. And the point about peasants is simple, they're people no different from proletarian workers that the Bolsheviks fetishized so much, yet their lives were ruined for the goal of rapid industrialization when that sort of development could have been achieved in a much more humane way had the NEP been continued and the idea of cooperative farming and worker co-op society been implemented like Lenin had suggested before his death.
Instead the Soviets had bureaucrats and bougie academics go into the countryside and order the peasants like a capitalist employer and cause massive exploitation.
Samuel Lopez
Mass line maybe but is people's war really applicable to the 1st world?
