-----Mensagem original----- De: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]Em nome de ChrisD(RJ) Enviada em: sexta-feira, 31 de maio de 2002 09:16 Para: 'lbo-talk at lists.panix.com' Assunto: The Peasant Question from Marx to Lenin by Nirmal Kumar Chandra
Rakesh Bhandari asked me to forward this to LBO and comment on it.
Unfortunately, I am not very well informed on subject of collectivization, but I can say that farmers on kholhozy in contemporary Russia are usually quite opposed to privatization of land, I don't know if this is because of a real preference for collective agriculture or because so many people have gotten burned from fake privatization scams in the past. They tend to support the Agrarian Party, which says it stands for the interests of collective farm workers and, along with the KPRF, makes up the National Patriotic Bloc.
During the pre-perestroika Soviet Union, agriculture was one place in which market relations were officially condoned. Collective farm workers in villages could take the produce from their private land plots, take it into cities and sell it (which, come to think of it, is probably why production is higher on those plots).
Chris Doss The Russia Journal ----------------------------
Hmmm.....maybe I could write something about how to explain why Russian peasants opposed to collectivization in the 30?s and then became opposed ro decollectivization
1-Collectivization in Russia was designed not to improve agricultural output or to improve peasant?s living standards, but to deprive peasants from their excedent production, which was considered necessary to feed industrialization. The decision to undertake forced collectivization was almost an emergencial one, since the peasants were refusing to sell their excedents, and so cities were threated with famine. Furthermore, USSR couldn?t get strong currency to buy industrial equipment withouth selling those excedents. 2-Given the fact that collectivization was equal to expropiation, it?s not surprising that the peasants resiste it fiercely, this was further worsesned by the decision include livestock in the things to be collectivized, this resulted in a disaster, since pesants slaugthered their cattle for food or money. In Maoist China, on the other hand, there was almost no resistance to collectivization, which proceeded in a diferent way. 3-Results: Collectivization costed the USSR millions of human lives plus almost 50% of their cattle. Agricultural output became essentially stagnated at pre revolutionary levels in the 30?s, to recover only after WWII. Peasants were poorly paid (just like urban workers) and their living standards declined a loss. On the positive side, the government was able to use agriculture to finance a very fast industrialization, and while production didn?t improve, productivity in a per man basis, improved a lot, since many people moved from the countyside to the cities withouth decline in agricultural output. This released manpower for the new industries. 4-After WWII. The situation in USSR changed after WWII, as the Soviet agriculture had dramatic gains in productivity.Grain harvests increased from 70-80 million tons in the end of 30?s to 170-200 million in the 80?s (the better harvest was in 1978 -235 million tons). Despite this, USSR was turn into a grain importer, which is probably due to the increased internal consumption, massive post harvest losses (that was the main trouble with USSR agriculture) and subsidies that were so high that it was cheap to give bread to food livestock (I read those reports in Brazilian Press in the 80?s, cannot confirm if they are true). The improvements in productivity were achieved at the cost of those higher subsidies, which, in late USSR years, rivalled with military spendings to ceate constraints to GNP growth. I think they even surpassed military spendings. 5-So it?s clear that the Soviet agriculture changed from a role of support for other activities in the 30?s to a drain of Soviet resources in the 70-80?s. It?s very likely that peasants benefited from these changes and had their living standards improved. Furthermore, it?s possible that the collective farm system helpled to provide them with healthcare and education and another basic services (electricity, treated water). In China decollectivization led to the collapse of healthcare in the countryside, resulting in a possible increase in infant mortality in the last years. And as we know, life in small plots in Third World countries is really miserable. That?s why peasants are probably resisting decollectivization