Lenin's speech: The Middle Peasants ☭ Ленин: О крестьянах-середняках

THE MIDDLE PEASANTS (1919):
"The most important question now confronting the Communist Party, the question on which most attention was concentrated at the last Party Congress, is that of the middle peasants.

Naturally, the first question usually asked is, what is a middle peasant?

Naturally, Party comrades have often related how they have been asked this question in the villages. The middle peasant, we say in reply, is a peasant who does not exploit the labour of others, who does not live on the labour of others, who does not take the fruits of other people's labour in any shape or form, but works himself, and lives by his own labour.

Under capitalism there were fewer peasants of this typo than there are now, because the majority of the peasants were in the ranks of the impoverished, and only an insignificant minority, then, as now, were in the ranks of the kulaks, the exploiters, the rich peasants.

The middle peasants have been increasing in number since the private ownership of land was abolished, and the Soviet government has firmly resolved at all costs to etablish relations of complete peace and harmony with them. It goes without saying that the middle peasant cannot immediately accept socialism, because he clings firmly to what he is accustomed to, he is cautious about all innovations, subjects what he is offered to a factual, practical test and does not decide to change his way of life until he is convinced that the change is necessary.

It is precisely for this reason that we must know, remember and put into practice the rule that when Communist workers go into rural districts they must try to establish comradely relations with the middle peasants, it is their duty to establish these comradely relations with them; they must remember that working peasants who do not exploit the labour of others are the comrades of the urban workers and that we can and must establish with them a voluntary alliance inspired by sincerity and confidence. Every measure proposed by the communist government must be regarded merely as advice, as a suggestion to the middle peasants, as an invitation to them to accept the new order.

Only by co-operation in the work of testing these measures in practice, finding out in what way they are mistaken, eliminating possible errors and achieving agreement with the middle peasant-only by such co-operation can the alliance between the workers and the peasants be ensured. This alliance is the main strength and the bulwark of Soviet power; this alliance is a pledge that socialist transformation will be successful, victory over capital will be achieved and exploitation in all its forms will be abolished."

V.I. LENIN. March 1919.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/x07.htm
http://www.icl-fi.org/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• lenin
• sin
• tierra
• sindicato
• partido
• obrero
• huelga
• lucha
• شيوعية
• struggle
• Владимир
• Ильич
• Ленин
• terrateniente
• 列寧
• euskal
• herria
• 毛泽东
• new
• delhi
• kolkata
• 香港
• भारत
• kosovo
• grozni
• bpp
• mumia
• abu
• jamal
• oakland
• miami
• california
• greek
• iraq
• china
• korea
• japan
• vietnam

[Shukria123]

Most Russians I've met have told me they lived better under communism.

[aponilenin]

Stalin missed this speech!

[kitteh200]

watches video.

pauses at 1:20

see Lenin with a kitty

LENIN IS MY FUCKING HERO.

[ruvvjub]

@boleroinferno The free market operates off of voluntary exchanges between individuals.

For this reason I oppose the legality of corporate person-hood, because a group of people cannot have rights.

The difference between a democratically controlled society and a free market republic is that the first listed operates with force and can take away the rights of 49% of the population if 51% wants to.

Voluntary exchanges are just, socialized governments are aggressive and forceful.

[ruvvjub]

@boleroinferno The only reason there are a few rich capitalists in the first place is because there is a government that they work with to pick and choose winners and losers instead of letting the free market work.

In a legitimate free market, the people have a choice of who they want to do business with and the employers have to make a quality product or else they will go out of business.

There is no incentive in a socialist/communist society, because everybody is paid the same.

[boleroinferno]

@ruvvjub The industrial technology that allowed the population to expand so greatly is also necessary for its maintenance.

The means of production, which society needs to survive, should be democratically controlled by that society instead of how it's controlled now, where a few rich capitalists control the means of production, which they use to throw people onto the street to increase profit margins, start wars so poor people can die to secure natural resources, take over governments..

[boleroinferno]

@ruvvjub You're talking about isolated subsistence farming. That may be possible, if you can avoid taxes and war, but it's not viable for a vast majority of society. The peasantry was actually what this speech is about, how the Bolsheviks just fought the civil war to grant them freedom from economic serfdom and now must respect their self-determination.

[ruvvjub]

@boleroinferno How in the hell is socialism not force? What if I disagree with socialism and want to just provide for myself and keep the fruits of my labor? Will the government force me to comply?

With a genuine free market in a republic you have choice. You can choose whether or not to belong to a socialist community or just live independently.

On a small scale socialism is great, as long as no-one is forced to comply with it. On a large scale it is nothing but a recipe for tyranny.

[boleroinferno]

@ruvvjub The Communist Manifesto isn't the in-depth materialist analysis for which Socialism draws its basis of theory from; it's basically a pamphlet summarizing communist views. To compare that to any other work which is meant to be theoretical (I don't know Hayek) is moot.

What you should read is Capital. This is the in-depth material analysis of capitalism which is still used to the present day by economists on both sides of the fence, though the author also means it is censored.

[boleroinferno]

@ruvvjub Democracy is the ultimate goal of Marxist socialism. Democracy is paid lip service to by pro-capitalists, yet if you look literally at the requirements of democracy, they contradict the economic structure of capitalism: media are owned by the rich, politicians are financed by the rich, laws are made by the rich, wars are fought for the rich. The American worldview is foremost a caricature drawn to show what things the ruling class wants to show; thus widespread ignorance.

[boleroinferno]

@ruvvjub You don't understand Socialism (/communism) if you think they require force. It is the exact opposite. In a democratic society, there is no force required.

Force becomes required when you have severe inequalities like those that are an inseparable part of capitalism. You can tell a non-democracy (non-socialism) because the police need to oppress peaceful protesters to maintain the power structure, wars are started by and for the profit of the few yet fought by the many.

[ruvvjub]

@boleroinferno Capitalism cannot exist without the defense of property rights and contracts by a government.

Believe me, I have thought though my ideas and the ideas of others. I have read books from both sides of the isle from The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx to Human Action by Frederick Hayek.

Individualism and the free market are the most logical and reasonable philosophies. Socialism and communism require force, capitalism and limited government allows choice.