/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>you are a kulak
I immediately kill myself

>>2784286
gun to your head A or B

>>2784893
The gun

I would do a fortnite dance to appease the soviet lords.

>>2784271
Sounds like Marxists suffer the same problem as the liberal economists who think people are le "rational actors." I guess neither could explain why well off surbanites destroy their lives with drugs and whoring around.

>>2784938
>Sounds like Marxists suffer the same problem as the liberal economists who think people are le "rational actors."
but marx acknowledges subjective and irrational individual preferences on page 1 of capital when he says that commodities have both use value and exchange value. the exchange value is the objective labor content but the use value is the potentially-subjective preference which creates demand, arising "either in the stomach or in the imagination". a person demands food because they are hungry, but a person can also demand things they don't really need to live, and these demands are irrational and subjective. Marxists do not think every individual person is a rational actor, but that people in aggregate form social classes which on average behave in their own material interests, even if they do not do so in each individual instance.

>>2784271
The so-called poor peasant has an interest in forming cooperatives; these are victims of coercion and debt from the so-called prosperous peasants who take advantage of their excess of good land, tools, and buildings for peasant use to indebt and coerce these peasants into selling their labor power, even sabotaging them if they wish to separate themselves from this abusive relationship. The average peasants are more indifferent, but may accept transitioning to work in a peasant cooperative, potentially seeing benefits. The prosperous peasant who is on the threshold between petty bourgeoisie and rural capitalist must accept transitioning into cooperatives so as not to abuse other peasants or speculate with food production. Their very capacity as a kulak in the NEP already demonstrates low scruples and antagonistic interests against the rest of the population, the rural proletariat, and other poorer peasants. Stalin gave these individuals too many chances to cooperate, but at least the petty interests of many of these individuals were useful in exposing the right-wing sector cooperating with capitalism that needs to be purged from the communist party, while non-cooperative kulaks should receive re-education for their anti-social behavior or more severe punishments.

To answer your question, the solution would be to prepare and collaborate with poor peasants in working in a cooperative or state farm, remaining humble and collaborating in the redistribution of food to meet the needs of the working population, ceasing to coerce poor peasants for personal enrichment, and ceasing to use their crops for market speculation. Since the kulak still possesses a portion of the labor done by their own workforce, the question I ask is whether you will continue using the prosperous land gained through agrarian reform, with buildings and tools for your work done in conjunction with other workers for the benefit of society as a whole, or to maintain a petty, abusive relationship of coercion to restore a capitalist relationship where you will be the owner? Do you accept, for your own petty interest, that because you are creating an antagonistic relationship with the rest of society, the proletariat and poor peasants have the right to use violence against you, or do you think there will be no consequences?

A) because losing status and wealth and going back to the level of a worker is a fate worse than death, you would get this feeling if you ever had money and lost it, shit sucks.

class reactionaries make all the sense if you think about it for a second, I don't get racism but I do get fear of losing your status.

>>2785145
>because losing status and wealth and going back to the level of a worker is a fate worse than death
even under socialism?

>>2785150
in the building stages of socialism life still sucks, it is hopeful for the workers but not really hopeful for the ones that got their shit took

>go from enjoying vast profits, a life of luxury and status to being an average joe working their ass off with constant back pain
<"damn this shit sucks"
>"but look on the bright side, we are lifting so much people out of povery and increasing literacy"
<"I don't give a shit, I want my shit back, I don't like work"

>>2785150
especially under socialism

>>2784271
Retarded framing like this is the only thing that kulaks and anticommunists have to counter communist arguments for progress.

First of all, kulaks didn't own the land, they leased it. Revolution brought about kulaks to actually own the land they worked. Land owners got their land confiscated in favor of local councils, which then provided the land as needed to the peasantry - kulaks included

Next, grain wasn't confiscated, it was sold to government at fixed prices, with sales to the market forbidden UNTIL the government quota was fulfilled. Also, grain hoarding in the area was punished with grain taken away from hoarders and redistributed without compensation for free, to destroy speculative pricing.

Collectivization was infiltrated by kulaks initially, who viewed it as a way to centralize rural resources in their hands. Many collective farms were disbanded for this reason, so that collective farms' power base be not rich households but rather a collective of poor farmers pooling their resources. "Forced" collectivization happened only in anticommunist propaganda, it was more like the adoption of electricity and machinery, a movement for progress and treated as such. Reactionaries - such as kulaks who clung to manual labor on their fields - got really pissy about it and wanted to restore old relations, because tractor was much, much cheaper and much, much more efficient than horses and working the fields by hand, and kulaks couldn't compete fairly. Also, you can see from statistics how collectivization decimated horse populations, because horse eats more in money terms than a tractor, and guess who in the rural area had most horses and who was leasing them to other villagers, lol

Hope this little essay helps you to set your historical knowledge straight!