Talk:Kulak

message: One thing I find disappointing in this article is the lack of information about how the word kulak was used before the Bolsheviks adopted it. This posting on rootsweb suggests that it was understood to be a perjorative term, meaning "village usurer". If so, I would not expect anyone to have used the term to describe himself, and Stolypin wouldn't have used it in promoting his policies. The article suggests otherwise, though.
Is there a source which mentions how the term was used before it denoted a class enemy? Aoeuidhtns (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kulaks before the October Revolution 

message: There's no neutral point of view here.
I understand that people formed under capitalism are unable to realize their bias, so they should give themselves at least a little of marxist formation (at the minimum, read Das Kapital) to gain some capacity to analize the things beyond the little box of capitalism, exploitation, market logic, etc.
I don't have time right now to explain this on detail, so I'll point out just a couple of examples:
There's no indication about how the kulaks made their property.
The same about how they made their incomes, under which conditions they exploit the working force of poor peasants.
There's no frame to understand (or will to explain) which were the goals of the revolution, the socialization of the land and production means.
There's no recount about the level of poberty of the peasant masses, and the general economic condition (it's obvious that 4 horses, or 2 cows and a piece of land, when everybody is dying of hunger, is a lot of capital, and implies a lot of exploitation).
There's a lot of this things like this in the article, but I supose this should be enough to make someone start to think outside capitalist box...
190.30.166.161 (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, the issue with the article in its current state is that Robert Conquest is frequently cited as a source of factual or definitional passages, with no mention that the definitions and assertions represented in those passages are in fact contested by other historians, and the article also fails to mention any perspectives besides strongly anti-Stalin/anti-Soviet ones. This doesn't mean that we should make this into a propaganda piece in the other direction, or even that the opposing viewpoints need to be given equal weight (at least, not if they aren't of similar levels of notability and number), but simply that in the interest of presenting all points of view neutrally, mention needs to be made of other historical views supported by notable sources. goose121 (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Never forget who owns Wikipedia, comrades. Articles on communism are where the mask comes off. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:45E5:AD52:8FC8:C630 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalistic article on kulaks 

message: I thought that all of the talking points were thorough and well written.  I was able to get a more in depth view of the specific sub-sections that the Kulaks embodied.  What I find most interesting about this article is the short section that has been dedicated to those executed as a result of bucking the system, or fighting back.  Though many people simply, "disappeared"; the number of death was estimated anywhere from 700,000 persons, to 6 million people.  Those numbers, though high, are significantly different.  It would be great to find a more exact and finite estimate to the number of people that were killed as a result of forced collectivization.
LoAnsons18 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Read 

message: I reverted this edit because "liquidated" has a specific meaning in both this particular context as well as in Marxism. "Liquidated" is not a synonym for "killed", as most direct references to this phrase by Marxist writers and leaders is followed by "as a class". While violence is often a means for "liquidation", it may also refer to changing relations of production by means of re-appropriation of land ownership.
:If anyone has an issue with my edit, please take a look at the Liquidation (disambiguation) page. déhanchements (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit by [[Special:Contributions/Wikiamoo|Wikiamoo]] ([[User talk:Wikiamoo|talk]]) 

message: The article contradictorily refers to kulaks as "peasants" several times but then explains that they were "former peasants" who became wealthy. The word "peasant" links to the wiki page for peasant which says peasants are defined by "limited land ownership" or feudalism. The Kulaks were closer feudal lords rather than peasants. Kulaks were by definition landed and wealthy and thus not peasants. Zobdos (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peasants 

message: Under heading Definitions, subhead 1930s, this sentence is found.
>The average value of goods confiscated from kulaks during the policy of "dekulakization" (раскулачивание) at the beginning of the 1930s was only 170–400 rubles (US $90–$210) per household.
Is the currency conversion contemporary or modern? If modern then use of the word only may be appropriate, but adjusted for inflation the range of US$90-$210 becomes US$1,400-3,270. In the context of relatively poor peasants just barely above or at subsistence level, this seems like an inaccurate editorialization. Understanding that finding appropriate conversion values for the ruble between 1917 and 1961 is difficult, how was this value reached? The level of bias in the cited source is a matter of some debate, but I do not own a copy and cannot check for myself. Summary:
a) dispute editorialization in quoted sentence
b) question accuracy of quoted conversion
c) suggest more relevant contemporary point of comparison found (e.g. "food budget for family of 4 per month" or "price of [x] loaves of bread") though it is also understood that the relative volatility of the era may make this difficult as well
C arc (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  value of confiscated goods in 1930 vs modern day