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 agriculture. 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, up to the onset of the Modern Age, and refers mainly to the countries of Western Europe. This period is characterized by specific features of life: the feudal system of relations between landowners and peasants, the existence of seigneurs and vassals, the dominant role of the church in the life of the entire population.

One of the main features of the history of the Middle Ages in Europe is the existence of feudalism, a special socio-economic structure and mode of production.

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

Dependence of peasants on feudal lords

A rich lord received possession 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 crops: furnaces, mills, and a grape crusher. They paid the tax in natural products: grain, honey, wine.

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

Wars periodically took place between the vassals, during which the peasants asked for the protection of their master, for which they were forced to give him their allotment, and in the future became completely dependent on him.

The division of peasants into groups

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

The tools of labor of peasants in the Middle Ages in the field 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 a plow was used on light soils. For harvesting, sickles and chains were used for threshing.

All tools of labor in the Middle Ages remained unchanged for many centuries, because the peasants did not have money to purchase new ones, and their feudal lords were not interested in improving working conditions, they were only concerned about getting a big harvest at minimal cost.

The discontent of the peasants

The history of the Middle Ages is notable for the constant confrontation between large landowners, as well as the feudal relationship between rich lords and the impoverished peasantry. This position was formed on the ruins of ancient society, in which slavery existed, which was clearly manifested in the era of the Roman Empire.

The rather difficult conditions of how the peasants lived in the Middle Ages, the deprivation of their land allotments and property, often caused protests, which were expressed in various forms. Some desperate fled from their masters, others staged mass riots. The rebellious peasants were almost always defeated because of disorganization and spontaneity. After such riots, the feudal lords sought to fix the amount 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 the peasants

With the growth of the economy and the emergence of production by the end of the Middle Ages, an industrial revolution took place, many villagers 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 Age came, in which there was no longer any place for outdated relationships between peasants and their lords.

Causes of unprofitable agriculture in developed countries or how peasants were madeagriculturalslaves.

The grain thrown into the ground gives one ear. An ear contains from 10 to 80 grains, depending on the plant. That is, 1 part of the cost will be 9-79 parts of income. Which, translated into economic language, is 900-7900 percent of the profit. Even taking into account the fact that a third of the seeds will not sprout, it turns out 300 - 2000 percent of the profit. net profit. That is why Robinson Crusoe planted a few grains and in a year provided himself with a comfortable life. That is why in ancient times agriculture has always been profitable. Always and everywhere. Even in northern countries like Russia. It is no coincidence that Russia has been exporting 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 follow its laws. It has always been so! Therefore, to live on earth meant to have 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 break the career of a party worker, then he was sent to "rise agriculture." And then they just shot him for a bad job. 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 submits 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 United States and in Europe and in all technically developed countries. This can be seen throughout the twentieth century. Even now, farmers suffer losses from running their farms. It is better not to work than to work. So what's the deal? Why what was profitable before the nineteenth century suddenly became unprofitable in the twentieth century. What made agriculture unprofitable? Compare the methods of agriculture of past centuries and the twentieth century. When agriculture was profitable, then:

- plowing was done by hand or on horseback. Horses, unlike harvesters, breed. Therefore, with a careful attitude towards animals, the plowman will have many "living mechanisms" that feed themselves, repair themselves and also multiply. So in 10 years, when the horse gets old, you will have a new horse, and maybe a whole herd of healthy strong horses. Also with manual labor. The larger the family, the richer it lives. Because there are many helpers. Sowing by hand is very simple and can be performed by an old man and a small child. A child and 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 needs of the village for tools. The village was self-sufficient. The village did not depend on anyone, except for the decrees of the king on taxes and taxes. Thus, plowing and sowing was easier and cheaper than it is now. Labor costs were less in agriculture and there was independence from gasoline prices, parts, strikes and other problems of the city. It is the introduction of industrial technology in agriculture that ruins the village. Tractors are very expensive, require constant maintenance, and they do not breed and never will. - Care of a crop was carried out manually. It is hard work? For a healthy person, not so much. Such work strengthened health. Maintenance of technology destroys health. And the use of pesticides destroys both the nature and the health of the villagers. And that means destroying the village and the townspeople. It's as stupid as building lead plumbing in Rome. Everything became "civilized" and beautiful - only the Romans began to die out. Previously, clean water was drunk in wells and in streams. And then they began to drink lead-poisoned tap water. Rome has deteriorated. The same is true with the villages. Manual labor taught friendly work and strengthened health. The Russian invincible army consisted of ninety percent of peasants and Cossacks (the same peasants, only trained to fight from childhood). -- Harvesting was carried out manually or with the use of horses. Therefore, the costs were small for cleaning: to feed the horses and people and sharpen the sickle. A sickle costs a million times less than a harvester. And any family can buy a sickle and a scythe from a blacksmith. And in general, the more hands in the family, the richer she lived. The friendlier the rural community, the better the village lived. Proof? All roads used to be built by peasants. They financed the construction of the roads themselves. What farmer or collective farm can finance and build a road now? The use of harvesters for harvesting is simply ruinous for the village. Combines do not breed. In addition, three types of machines are needed for work: a tractor (for plowing), a machine (for transporting people and goods), a combine (for harvesting). Previously, all these works were performed by a horse and people. This means that expenses in the countryside have increased hundreds, and maybe tens of thousands of times. Therefore, agriculture has become unprofitable in all developed countries. -- Training in rural tricks was carried out in the village. Therefore, young people usually rarely moved to cities. Now, as a rule, training in rural labor takes place in other cities in vocational schools and universities, and usually young people do not return to the village. In general, the education system throughout the world is built in such a way that it prepares the child for life in the city, and not in nature. He is taught stocks, pension funds, higher mathematics and other nonsense that is 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 local climate and various subtleties of family and public life. As a result, a child at the age of 14 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. A person simply knew how to understand nature and could take care of himself and those around him in any living nature. Now a rare graduate of a vocational school or a university can live in nature on his own - it turns out that a person has spent several years of his life, and does not know how to do what every child could do in antiquity. And so he simply cannot do a good job in the countryside. And as a result, the graduate remains to live in the city. Simply put, village children are taught what they do not need for a happy life on earth. 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 single standard of education is one of the reasons for the extinction of villages and the departure of young people to the city from the villages. I was in a rural school in Russia. There is a list of prestigious professions in the classroom: a programmer, a manager, a bank employee, ..... I don’t remember the list exactly, but there was not a single rural profession. There was not even a beekeeper on the list, although even in the USSR beekeepers lived well. It turns out that even in a rural school, children are taught that "leave here. You have no future here. Your professions and knowledge are not needed here. You can achieve success and happiness only in the city." countries. Indians don't have such stupidity. Therefore, the Indians of North America do not die out, but continue to live. As well as Russian villages of Old Believers in the USA and Canada. As they lived richly under the king, so they live.

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

- Sowing is done with the help of machines. So the farmer depends on: 1. gasoline prices. 2. from 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 are constantly working to pay for the cost of equipment and the cost of houses, and to repay loans. In fact, all farms take loans for sowing. But that means they feed banks, factories (which build tractors, harvesters, make spare parts, produce gas stations). Virtually all farms in the world are in debt bondage. That is, they are slaves who constantly have to work to pay their debts. So agriculture becomes unprofitable even when sowing. - Caring for crops with automatic watering and fertilizing is more expensive than manual labor and horses. And besides, the crop grown in this way is much worse in quality. This means that both villagers and townspeople with this method of production simply destroy their health, the health of their children and the health of those who buy their products. - Harvesting with combines. Combines and spare parts for them are expensive. In addition, the fewer children, the less worries for the farm worker. Because children cannot participate in the modern way of producing rural products. This means that even villagers, with the existing system of agriculture, 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 can see, the use of the modern method of land use not only destroys nature, but also turns peasants into slaves and leads to the extinction of villages. In addition, the use of combines, tractors and other agricultural machinery creates unemployment in the countryside. It used to be like this: a young family in the countryside was given land for free, built a house for free and helped to plant a garden and gave a foal, kittens, a puppy, a calf .... As a result, people lived happily. Now everyone has been turned into slaves: a young family will be given a house, but it will work for 5-15 years. It's just a form of modern slavery. And I generally consider the creation of unemployment in the countryside a crime. I gave an example of the unprofitability of agriculture on the example of only sowing grain crops. In fact, everything is also happening with the cultivation of animals and birds and with all other types of rural activities. Thus, the modern way of producing food and goods in the countryside using machines and fertilizers cannot be profitable, but is always unprofitable for three reasons:

-- The use of machinery and fertilizers and methods of deep plowing destroys the nature and health of villagers and townspeople. As a consequence, people become sick and unable to work well. This means that there will be no quality work. Patients cannot work well. - It is economically unprofitable for a peasant to conduct agriculture according to modern methods, since the costs grow hundreds and thousands of times compared to the old-fashioned methods of agriculture of past centuries. Therefore, the peasant will be constantly at a loss and the peasant becomes dependent on urban industries (factories, the production of gasoline and engine oil) - The use of combines and tractors creates unemployment in the countryside, which means it creates injustice. This leads to an increase in crime and drug addiction and drunkenness and a reduction in the birth of children. And looking at injustice, the people learn immorality and lies.

And the destruction of morality leads to the destruction of statehood. This is where the roots of corruption 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 their homes and livelihoods. But initially people in the villages lived happily. And there was no corruption precisely because everyone could grow everything he needed for his family. And the more a person lived in harmony with others, the more stable was the future of him and his family. 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 a neighbor-peasant. Because while agriculture was profitable, the peasants lived richly. As an example, we can recall the NEP in the USSR. In just a few years, the peasants raised the country. But during the NEP, the peasants used only the old-fashioned methods of agriculture. Fortunately, at that time there were no tractors, no combines, no cars. Therefore, the village was revived after the devastation of the civil war in just three or four years of the NEP. For a country to prosper, its people must be moral and healthy. As it was in tsarist Russia and ancient Russia since the time before the arrival of Rurik. Because even before our era, historians wrote about the rich lands of Russia and the strong people. And this cannot be done with unprofitable agriculture. It was from the village that the saying went "what you sow, you will reap!" Therefore, friendly families and friendly villages lived best of all, where moral laws were observed from time immemorial. Because the culture of Russia goes back millennia. Lomonosov also wrote that the Slavic people are at least 40 thousand years old. With unprofitable agriculture, the people die out in one generation. And we have lived for so many millennia and only now began 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, it is necessary to restore nature and forests. Where there is a forest, then people are healthy and the land is not depleted. To restore nature, you can and should use modern technology. Because there are not enough horses. Secondly, it is necessary to change the education system in rural schools and in the city. People must know the ecology, local herbs and know about the methods of ecological farming - in fact, these are those old-fashioned methods only taking into account our time. These are methods of extensive farming. In Europe, they were well shown by Sepp Holzer, who wrote the book Agrarian Revolutionary. In it, he talks about his farming, where he applies the old methods of agriculture of the past centuries. And his farm is more profitable than other farmers who use modern intensive farming methods. Sepp Holzer economically proved the correctness of the actions of our ancestors in the countryside. In addition, closed ecosystems have been created on his farm, just like in nature. Therefore, he only in the initial period bears the costs of creating these cycles on his land, and then the created economy serves itself without any equipment and fertilizers. The creation of such ecosystems and natural farming methods are mentioned 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 Russia, and not tax 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 it was in tsarist Russia, in which the peasants sold only excess products to the city. But even this was enough to export abroad. Equestrian clubs must now be created in villages and cities. Because this will allow you to quickly breed horses for the needs of the village and the city. This will provide an interesting activity for children. And it will improve the health of children and adults. Driving a car is unhealthy at any age, and horseback riding is usually only beneficial. And yes, it is safer. While people rode horses, there were not so many deaths and disabilities after collisions of machinery. 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. Therefore, we fly on airplanes, but we ride horses to restore our health." Therefore, in order for agriculture to become profitable again, it must be returned to ancient methods extensive ecological clean farming and animal husbandry. But this will not be enough. Because nature was not so destroyed in antiquity. Now it is necessary to restore nature everywhere, and especially to plant forests. Because the forest does not allow soil erosion to develop, it 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 up. Whereas in ancient times it would be possible to drink water not after boiling, but simply from a river or stream. How is it still preserved in some regions of Siberia, where modern technology has not yet had time to visit. Yes, and children communicating with animals, not technology, will grow kinder. And the village will be able to buy a few horses and, with careful handling, in ten years the village will have a whole herd of horses. But if you buy a harvester, don’t take care of it and please it, but in ten years or earlier it will fall apart and you won’t be able to propagate it. Combines like laptops do not multiply! So you have to buy everything again! And again, buying on credit is living like a slave in debt! A return to the ancient ecological system of land use, as it was in Russia, 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, then only the village can feed the people. Only not a modern dying village, but a strong Russian village that fed both the city and sent honey and grain and other goods to Europe. Forward to the past!!! To To the origins! PS 1. What is happening in the former USSR after 91 years can be called a humane genocide of the peoples of Russia. To capture the country does not need to fight and physically destroy the people. You can change moral values ​​and the people will die out. To do this, ideas are introduced into the youth. 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 such a way of life is being introduced, and such a culture of behavior is even promoted in every possible way. As a result, the people who will live according to this way of life will die out in 30 years. And it is possible to seize all its 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 earth from the invaders. This is a form of humane genocide of the people. A less humane genocide is 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 its vast land can be captured without firing a shot. All this is done simply through movies, books and songs. No violence. Just propaganda of new ideas is a substitution of the moral values ​​of the people. As an example, in the 1990s, psychologists said that the heroes of Western action movies contradicted Russian culture. Their heroes are the same bandits. Culture in movies and books is aggressive and immoral. The same 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 value and culture of the people. Almost every student 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 is the dance of our ancestors. In it is the prowess of the Russian people and strength and beauty. His movements are much smoother beautiful and complex compared to the bray dance. But Russian schoolchildren break dance. Although the break itself appeared in the 80s as a dance of robots. Unlike Russian culture, it bears aggressiveness within itself and resembles the dance of African warriors. The same sharp movement and aggressive behavior. Culture changes and people die. No violence. You don’t need a knife for a fool - you’ll lie to him from three boxes and do whatever you want with him! Rudyard Kipling once said, "The less technically advanced a country is, the more beautiful the women in it." Beauty is an indicator of health. A healthy animal is always beautiful. That's how God arranged it. Also with a person. In the 17th century, Western travelers wrote about Russia "The Russian people are beautiful and healthy and do not need doctors." 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 as in Europe. 5

Peasant, agricultural worker turned debt slave

First letter "p"

Second letter "e"

Third letter "o"

The last beech is the letter "n"

Answer for the clue "Peasant, agricultural worker turned debt slave", 4 letters:
peon

Alternative questions in crossword puzzles for the word peon

Verse meter

Laborer in Mexico

South American laborer

Agricultural worker in Latin America

poetic foot

Word definitions for peon in dictionaries

Wikipedia The meaning of the word in the Wikipedia dictionary
Peon - poetic size. Peon is a laborer in Latin America. Peon is a commune in France, in the department of Alpes-Maritimes.

Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998 The meaning of the word in the dictionary Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998
PEON (Greek paion) poetic meter, formed by 4-complex feet; depending on which syllable of the foot has a strong place, the peon 1st (on the 1st syllable of the foot), 2nd, 3rd and 4th are distinguished. In the Russian syllabo-tonic verse, the 2nd and 3rd peonies act ...

New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova. The meaning of the word in the dictionary New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova.
m. A four-syllable poetic foot of ancient metrics 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 the literature.

About 200 people worked on the construction of the road. peonies, they were all newcomers - from Ayacucho, Apurimac, especially many people came from Huancayo and Concepción, in the province of Junin.

Pedro, after examining her, seriously advised taking her to a hut for the night and vigilantly guarding: who knows if some kind of peon from the nearest hacienda, would you like to eat it?

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

But when the music floats in from the sea and spreads over the fort, over the schooners and canoes and speaks of love, Guma forgets about everything and surrenders with her soul only to this beautiful, lulling, smooth peon.

God has made his will and peon went to the allotment, where Groom was already thumping with his axe.

A hundred years ago, the Russian Empire was one of the five largest imperialist states and, at the same time, a country whose share of the rural population was about 85%, as well as a state that retained a relic of the feudal system - tsarism. Capitalism, which was rapidly developing in Russia, needed a new, different structure of the state apparatus, the old feudal uniform was already cramped and interfered with it.

The First Imperialist War hastened the fall of the tsarist regime in February 1917. “Millions and tens of millions, politically dormant for ten years, politically downtrodden by the terrible oppression of tsarism and hard labor for the landowners and factory owners, woke up and turned to politics. And who are these millions and tens of millions? For the most part, small proprietors, petty bourgeois, people who stand in the middle between capitalists and wage-workers. Russia is the most petty-bourgeois country of all European countries,” wrote Lenin in April 1917 (V.I. Lenin, “The 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 meet the demands of these millions and tens of millions of working people.

The struggle of this mass of working people for their fundamental interests led to the socialist revolution in October 1917.
What classes does the Russian working mass consist of? Everyone knows that from the workers and peasants. Which one is in the majority? Peasants. Who are these peasants according to their class position? Petty proprietors or proprietors,” wrote Lenin before the October Revolution. (V.I. Lenin, “One of the fundamental questions”, PSS, vol. 31, p. 301)

Such a state of society, when the working people are represented by the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie, petty proprietors 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 a Republic of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. All power in the center and locally belongs to these Soviets”, the 1925 Constitution of the RSFSR noted 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 the peasants to unite in large agricultural enterprises - collective farms - by sending representatives of the working class and equipment to help, creating machine and tractor stations.

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 proprietors working for the market into agricultural workers.

After the restoration of capitalism in Russia, in the 90s of the 20th century, the property of agricultural enterprises - collective farms - was divided into shares. And, it would seem, the peasant petty-bourgeois farms should have been revived ... No such luck!
What place does the peasantry as a class occupy in contemporary Russian society?

Before answering this question, it is necessary to recall Lenin's definition of classes: "Classes are large groups of people who differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relation (for the most part fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in 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 dispose of. Classes are such groups of people, of which one can appropriate the labor of another, thanks to the difference in their place in a certain way of 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 has no means of production and sells himself, his hands, his labor power. The peasant has the means of production - implements, livestock, land, his own or rented - and sells the products of his economy, being a small proprietor, a small businessman, a petty bourgeois. (V.I. Lenin "Trudoviki and workers' democracy", PSS, vol. 21, p. 269)

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

According to the data of the Federal State Statistics Service in 2006, the resident population of the Russian Federation on average per year was 143049637 people, of which: urban - 104775157, rural - 38274480. In 2014 the resident population of the Russian Federation on average per year was 146090613 people, them: urban - 108062992, rural - 38027621.

In 1990, the share of the rural population was 29%, in 2006 - 26.8%, in 2014 - 26% of the total population of the country. The share of the rural population continues to decrease.

According to the results of the All-Russian Agricultural Census of 2006:
The number of employees of 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) economy: 83.3 (2.6%).
- Small agricultural organizations: 232.4 (7.3%).
- Peasant (farming) households and individual entrepreneurs: 470.2 (14.8%).
The number of households (enterprises), including 22799.4 thousand personal subsidiary plots, amounted to 23224 thousand, of which:
- Agricultural organizations type 2 (large and medium): 27.8 thousand - the average number of employees is 121 people.
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) economy: 32 thousand - the average number of employees is 4 people.
- Small agricultural organizations: 20.4 thousand - the average number of employees is 18 people.
- Peasant (farm) enterprises and individual entrepreneurs: 253.1 thousand - average number of employees 4 people.
In total, 3167.4 thousand people are employed, which is 8.3% of the rural population and approximately 4.5% of the total working-age population of Russia in 2006. 75% of workers are employed in large and medium-sized agricultural enterprises and only about 18% in farms that can be called peasant (individual entrepreneurs and farms). Even if we do not take into account that among these workers there are proletarians and semi-proletarians and consider them all peasants, petty bourgeois, then their numerical share is less than 1/5 of those employed in agricultural production and less than 1% of the able-bodied population.

According to the results of the same All-Russian Agricultural Census of 2006:
The total land area is 450599.5 thousand hectares, the sown area is 74857.1 thousand hectares, of which by farms:
- Agricultural organizations type 2 (large and medium): 329666.3 and 49543.9 (66.2%).
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) economy: 3398 and 1337.6 (1.8%).
- Small agricultural organizations: 76296.6 and 8503.9 (11.4%).
- Peasant (farm) households and individual entrepreneurs: 25972.8 and 11590 (15.5%).
- Personal subsidiary and other individual households 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) economy: 121.4 (0.5%).
- Small agricultural organizations: 692.3 (2.9%).
- Peasant (farming) households and individual entrepreneurs: 858.1 (3.6%).
- Personal subsidiary and other individual households of citizens: 11299.4 (48.1%).

Including the number of dairy cattle is 22652 thousand heads, of which:
- Agricultural organizations type 2 (large and medium): 10040.6 (44.3%).
- Individual entrepreneurs who have not formed a peasant (farm) economy: 111.4 (0.5%).
- Small agricultural organizations: 643 (2.8%).
- Peasant (farming) households and individual entrepreneurs: 738.2 (3.3%).
- Personal subsidiary and other individual households of citizens: 11046.6 (48.8%).

Even these incomplete data show that large and medium-sized farms account for 3.5 times more sown area 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 in the personal subsidiary farms 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 class of the petty bourgeoisie (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 the countryside will be able to rely primarily on the workers of agricultural industrial enterprises, and not on the petty bourgeoisie - the 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, Trudoviks and Workers' Democracy, PSS, vol. 21, p. 270)
Unfortunately, the complexity of modern statistics makes it impossible to show the share of the 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, petty proprietors are ruined and perish, they pass 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, the small proprietors, and above all the peasantry—these are the three main ‘forces’ into which Russia, like any other 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 also by 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 retain state power?”, PSS, vol. 34, pp. 326-327)

Well, at least one of the forces - the petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry - has significantly decreased in number, while the other - the proletariat - has increased, turning from millions and tens of millions into thousands and tens of thousands. This intensifies and sharpens 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.