Stop eating food. Stop hoarding grain. Stop eating your neighbor.
Why do you retards argue in favor of Communism when you don't know a single thing about history?
A few generations prior to Bolsheviks and Communists coming along and genociding people serfs were legitimate slaves. They were freed 40-50 years prior to this, and were allowed to own land and sell their labor- which they did, moving around the Country looking for better jobs- in which they worked and bought land.
Land ownership among the elites greatly decreased, to the point where only half the land actually belonged to wealthy elites. Which means that half of the people you deem as kulaks were legitimate slaves a few generations ago.
It's equivalent to killing land owners in America a generation after blacks were freed, and the blacks owned half the land and you justify it because "land owners were slave owners"- yet you're so ignorant to understand that there were immense reforms just prior to this FREEING THE SLAVES.
definition of kulak was anyone who could afford to pay someone else 1-2months wages. These weren't giant MONSANTO oligarchs. Kulaks included the poor. Having a family farm and hiring your neighbor to help you harvest for one or two months isn't exploitation.
There were 10 million privately owned slaves prior to emancipation. 23 million were freed and given human rights in 1860.
Serfs gained the full rights of free citizens, including rights to marry without having to gain consent, to own property and to own a business.
Land ownership among peasants rose from ~4% to ~20%, while land ownership among gentry decreased from 80% to 50%
This is significant in itself as this was only within 40 years, or two generations where land ownership among the elites decreased to HALF while ownership among peasants was increasing DRASTICALLY.
Considering they only accounted for half the land, it's obvious that this greatly affected the recently freed slaves of emancipation. It's also easy to assume that, without these genocides, that land ownership among peasants would continue to increase- considering they quadrupled in a mere 40 years.
Mason Richardson
Communists ended the millennium long era of droughts and Famines all throughout China and Russia localized famines or near famines happened frequently and it's only thanks to the effort of industrialization that the people received their food, Soviet citizens actually had a better diet then Americans and vegetable/fruit eaten in Russia has dramatically dropped since the collapse of the USSR which the peasants themselves could not afford and despite being freed conditions for most of the peasantry remained the same. All the good land was still owned by aristocrats like in Ireland with the potato famine where if there were any free Irish farmers they had absolute horrible land. These tsarist reforms did little in improving the lives of the peasantry and only empowerd a small amount of people who quite often were sometimes even worse. Your logic is if a black slave can pull up his bootstraps and get the rights to beat other slaves to death that it's good and a nice system because it's preferable to just straight up genocide. Also like something out of freed slaves in America having to remain as servants since they would starve to death and were uneducated. Kulak translates to clenched first because they were infamous for beating and killing peasants working on their farms and Kulaks weren't even peasantry because peasants were the people hired on kulak farms payed for with their excess surplus labor. And some Slaves in America also ended up owning slaves or being freed and going onto better lives doesn't mean it wasn't a fucking horrible system. A better comparison would be the Irish where lower class people had shit land which could barely provide food for a single family and a single bad crop killed millions, and unlike the Soviets who collectivized the equivalent of the British ruling classes farmland to feed the peasants the British let them all die. Based Sherman and Lincoln advancing the dialectics, if you enslaved people you get a bullet, i'm not picky
Ayden James
Can I have a human right too?
Brandon Nelson
Kulaks were grain traders first and foremost.
Joseph Gonzalez
source: my ass
Juan Brown
The average value of goods confiscated from kulaks during the policy of "dekulakization" (раскулачивание) at the beginning of the 1930s was only $90–$210 (170–400 rubles) per household. [Average yearly income was around $1000-1200]. Owning farm animals or being involved in trade at even a basic level could flag you as a kulak.
Both peasants and Soviet officials were often uncertain as to what constituted a kulak. They often used the term to label anyone who had more property than was considered "normal", according to subjective criteria, and personal rivalries played a part in the classification of enemies.
" Criteria included: + Any involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labor income".
By the last item, any peasant who sold his surplus goods on the market could be automatically classified as a kulak."
Serf emancipation didn't go as smoothly as you imagine, that yesterday's serfs up and started owning land for free and becoming le self-made entrepreneurs. Serfs were forced to buy out their land which for the majority meant that serfom de facto continued until 1905 - when all debt was lifted from fear of peasant uprisings. To become a kulak you pretty much had to be an exploiter and have some sort of unfair privilege. It's not like the Bolsheviks invented the term, "kulak" was already used among the peasantry, as a pejorative, meaning - tight fisted, someone squeezing the life out of other peasants etc. Many or most of them were con-men or violent slave drivers
Ian Murphy
please tell us OP how this is not literal bloodsucking?
well social democracy is related to communism Lenin was one, the founders of the spartakusbund were social democrats and communists repeatedly engaged in popular fronts with them there's a little more to "what is socialism", and even those promoting social ownership can still effectively work against it, just as those who oppose social ownership as "premature", like social democrats did, wanting to delay revolution and socialism to some other day far in the future, even if they appear to be genuine like Maduro, are maybe related to socialist branches, but obviously opposed to its practical implementation and carrying out the struggle, promoting opportunism and parliamentarist appeasement just thought i might add this
Daniel Nguyen
And, like their petty bourgeois compatriots, they absolutely deserved it and where they still exist they deserve for it to happen to them again
capitalism sucks dick, and communism is a shitty alternative to it. lets not confuse free-enterprise with capitalism, neither should we confuse equity or fairness with communism. communism is the bastard son of capitalism, both are obsessed with money and human capital and see the world only in terms of financial arrangements, that's why they both devalue life and see enemies everywhere.
Logan Thompson
All i see in this post is you crying that capitalism and communism dont respect your hippy tier Feels > Reals utopian ideal society that will never exist
Bentley Barnes
...
Joseph Diaz
Nah you justify it because land ownership is counter-revolutionary you stupid libshit. You sound like you found out about the serfs 5 minutes ago and rushed here to tell everyone about your discovery. "It was just like da slaves in amurica" - no it wasn't. Most weren't freed when serfdom was abolished.
Elijah Taylor
Notice the complete lack of serious depth you display
Serfdom was abolished but with no compensation and no concessions from the Local lords. The new free Peasents were essentially told they weren't tied to the land anymore yet everything they ever had was still owned by local lords who guess what? Kept them working on barley subsistence wages on that exact plot of land. For the overwhelming majority of serfs they literally kept the exact same conditions only now getting a tiny wage that they could barely use to begin with because a local Lord could simply repossess all of their belongings and leave them homeless if they planned to leave the land they were originally tied to. This phenomena was also displayed in the US after slavery was abolished as well and only changed under efforts of direct federal involvement (even so many plantations effectively kept slaves the same as before just paying them a pittance they couldn't really use).
In Russia no such direct intervention was taken. Even if the new landless Peasents could get the money to move on they were horrendously undereducated and were left with little to no options aside moving to a city to be a beaten down prole liable to be scooped up by the Tsarist secret police for being to uppity or subsistence farming an another lords lands.
Colton Davis
And where did they get that extra wealth? The kulaks were, first and foremost, a burgeoning landlord class, and they gained their wealth through the exploitation of other peasants and the hammer finally fell on them because they used their positions to hoard and burn grain in protest of collectivization.
Carter Watson
Brainlets who think Tsarist Russia was 2018 America with funny fur hats and not a feudal hellscape where people ate tree bark and being a kulak was as exploitative as being a medium bourg is today.
Elijah Cooper
This is what always gets me, people seem to think people and conditions were like now but black and white and no cellphones or something. Being a kulak may not sound that big now but back when most peasents were landless and literally held hostage by Kulaks or Former Aristocratic lords just making them give you grain every harvest could mean your family eats like rats for the year and you can't sell it for money to get your roof fixed or invest in the farm.
Lucas Martinez
You might wanna provide some sources.
Also, you are confusing dekulakization (1930) and prodrazverstka (1918-1921).
Robert Kelly
Kulaks were forcing the rest of the village to sell grain to them. They monopolized grain trade.
Sorry OP, i know it's hard to grasp, but there's many people which simply can not e allowed to live in society under any circumstances. You can't grasp because most likely you're useless at your society, you work a useless job, you hold cancerous mentality. You're either american or anamericanized euro…you fucking people are so dangerou. No society will ever thrive when we have to carry you fuckers.
Benjamin Rogers
The solution, turn all people into being useful. Uselessness will not be tolerated. Constant peer review will ensure the usefulness of all.
Uselessness is tolerated in the west only because it ensures that surplus can be extracted from the productive jobs. And then redistributed to the useless ones, all kept in place through the discipline that comes with having a job.
They will not allow people to do things that the people actually want or think are useful. Nobody would let people organize to build a streetcar system in the cities they live in, unless there is a company that can suckle on a government contract and rake in that sweet taxpayer cash.
Syndicalist factory communes and organization of society around production at first is the one possible step towards self-governance. Phalansteries are a model for future borrowed from the past. At least this should alleviate the alienation a little bit.
Matthew Butler
read the damn thread see
Zachary Johnson
And this thread answered this. The kulaks got their wealth by exploiting other peasants.
Brody Price
Omg its Not so difficult If they start employing other peasants thus making them leave their Land and forcing them to sell their labour power (working for him) and revert to the situation from which you say they were freed (because if they were given land it could have been either bought by kulaks or just straight up they were given shitty land and needed to find somewhere to work, for example how convinient: a kulaks farm) they are kulaks. So yeah we fucking hate kulaks and they killed 2million livestock and burnt tons of fucking grain before giving up to collectivisation; the problem was probably that the measure to collectivise wasn't done before they got so much power And they definitely deserve couple bullets in the head for killing and destroying resources the peasants that worked for them instead of taking care of their own livestock and crops desperately needed.
Easton Mitchell
uhhh no, that's a lie.
95% of the people from Eastern Europe (mostly within the Russian empire) were poor peasant farmers who owned no land but paid high rents to the country's landlords who made up the middle/upper class, they were rich, privileged and had no problems withholding grain-stocks if necessary. Russian peasants lived in villages cut off from the rest of the world. The villages were not much more than a collection of mud huts lining the main road where illiterate peasants worked as indentured servants, farming the land to keep some food on the table and as payment of rent to wealthy landlords. When land grants were made originally, they were huge. The grantee came into possession of a huge chunk of land and whatever was on it, including towns and villages. The people became serfs, including the townspeople. The shopkeeper or blacksmith was a serf and paying rent or labour to a master on the same basis as a peasant serf. He was not free to move, or to go out of business, but he could start another, and occasionally a town serf would prosper. The town serfs were emancipated before the peasants; the peasants were freed in 1860, but on terms that worsened their living standards and security. The state bought 80% of their land from their landlord and sold it to them on a long-term mortgage. Since they considered it theirs already, this was no windfall. Around the middle of the 1800s, the British abandoned protectionist import barriers to grain, the Corn Laws, which gave southern Russia access to an export market. This created an opportunity for southern Russia to export, and they began growing wheat. The serfs who had originally worked half the landlord’s holding for him and half for themselves had often paid cash rent instead of labour and worked the whole holding for themselves. Now there was a new incentive in the mix and landlords reversed the terms. Serfs lost the produce from the extra land but still had to work it. Whatever entries into the cash economy they had contrived such as planting cash crops like flax frequently had to be abandoned. Russian peasants had one other alternative to a miserable life of tenant farming. They could move to the city to find work in one of the many miserable factories that were springing up all over Russia, becoming proletariat. By Russian law workers couldn’t be forced to work more than 11 ½ hours in a day (already a huge amount), but most factory bosses ignored this and the police were easily bribed to look the other way. Wages were very low, a few rubles for a months work. The factories were dirty, dark, and dangerous. Workers were given free housing but the conditions of these barracks were so terrible that they made a New York City tenement from 1890 look like a room at the Ritz. Each room was nothing more than a long, empty warehouse where each family stayed in a room divided by a piece of cloth. Each “room” was only large enough to fit a bunk bed that often touched the one next to it, (compare that to communals that at the least had proper rooms and were in themselves created ONLY because Tsarist Russia did not provide any proper houses for the people). The Russian Empire's peak production levels were in 1913 and the top estimate put it at about 1/5 of America's production prior to WW 1 (and even less as soon as the war began). The majority of these factories used outdated and inferior equipment, the top line new Battle-cruisers and Battleships that were to be the future of the Russian navy had almost all of its systems and products made over-seas because the Russian industry had no ability to provide an alternative. At the end of WW 1 and the civil war, Russia's production levels were about 0 because almost all the factories had been destroyed. The conclusion is obvious, the USSR was a drastic improvement over the Russian empire.
It’s worth noting that many Kulaks got their land after the revolution, since large estates were seized by peasants and then carved up among themselves, which often resulted in unequal distribution.
Cooper Rivera
Exactly this, Kulaks were not just regular landlords they charged Peaseant families in harvest not in money. They essentially acted like a feudal Lord but on a smaller scale than a baron or something like that.
Jose Cox
Look I don't like MLs or Stalin, but the whole "Soviets resorted to cannibalism" was literally Nazifag propaganda.
Nolan Garcia
That would rule Imagine All these reactionary shithead right wing complaints were replaced with them bitching we haven't read enough Lenin?
Jonathan Watson
...
Alexander Jenkins
holodomor you dense faggot
Hunter Fisher
whats funny is that marx and engels, stalin and lenin, all the officials in the committee and officers would qualify as kulaks, they should've gulaged themselves.
most of you leftists and your families would also qualify as kulaks since you aren't living in abject poverty.
