peasants' kulak: Social identities and moral economy in the Soviet countryside in the 1920s, The

Canadian Slavonic Papers, Dec 2000 by Lynne Viola

Peasants did not limit their analysis of the kulak to rural inhabitants engaged solely in agriculture. In fact, rural dwellers who earned what was called in both official and peasant parlance "unearned" or "nonlabor" income (netrudovoi dokhod) came in for especially harsh criticism. Unearned income could mean income not derived from physical labor or it could mean income which was earned through seemingly unequal exchange (in other words, profits). Those most often singled out for criticism were traders. Two other groups of, in the peasant mind, incipient or actual kulaks, were millers and craftsmen, who also came in for a fair share of criticism. The majority sentiment among peasants regarding all three groups seems to have been that they were the "embryos of future capitalists," as a Bednota commentary put it, or, more picturesquely as peasants would have it, "klopiki... vyrastit' v klopov" (the phrase defies translation, but could be rendered loosely as "small fry who grow into big fry").52

Traders were especially disliked by peasants. As the peasant Bazarnikov of Kaluga guberniia put it, a person "who is not of the kulak type" will not enter trade.53 Even two peasant authors who were rather moderate in their other classifications labeled all traders as "undesirables" (nezhelatel'nye) and as parasites.54 The peasant Razinov wrote that all traders, rich or poor, were kulaks; he illustrated this conclusion by saying "ne obmanesh'-ne prodesh"' (if you don't cheat, you don't sell).55 For many, even a poor peasant who engaged in trade could be labeled a kulak. A few peasants, however, did dissent from this viewpoint. The peasant Svettsov of Mozhaisk guberniia wrote that those who traded just to survive were not kulaks, rather only those who operated a shop were kulaks. 56 Several others agreed that poor traders were not kulaks and one author even stated that hard-working traders should not be labeled kulaks.57 Most peasant authors though clearly saw something intrinsically suspect in trade. Those who bothered to elaborate generally noted that the problem lie in unfair prices, more literally in unequal rates of exchange. Profits were not an accepted part of the peasant moral economy in the context of the precapitalist Russian countryside.58 And it should be noted that Russian peasants were not alone in this sentiment, sharing their dislike of traders with peasants of other nations and other times.59

Millers came in for some of the same harsh criticism as traders and were almost as frequently classified as kulaks. Moreover, due to their high visibility and relatively larger numbers, they were more vulnerable to the accusation than other types of enterprise owners.60 An article in Bednota offers an interesting description of the stereotypical image of the mill-dirty, exploiting hired labor, overcharging peasants, and forcing them to wait long hours in line for their turns.61 The key factors in the identification of miller as kulak were the presence of hired labor and, less frequently noted, the taking of more than a fair share for milling the peasants' grain. 62 Peasants, however, more often qualified their definitions of the kulak-miller than they did their definitions of the kulak-trader. Several peasants noted that "honest" millers should not be designated as kulaks. 63 The peasant Mikhno of Kaluga guberniia wrote that the "law-abiding" miller was not necessarily a kulak, adding-as did several others-that millers were much-needed people. 64 The peasant Kozlov, also of Kaluga guberniia, wrote that millers could not be kulaks by social definition because under Soviet conditions they could not own mills but could only rent them. 65 The general image of the miller, however, was of a rural inhabitant who was closer to the burzhui than to the laboring peasantry. The miller was so detested in some areas that, according to a village librarian in 1928, peasants thought it was best to shoot them. 66 As in other peasant cultures, the miller was always vulnerable to suspicion, whether for overcharging, mixing in inferior grain, or cheating peasants on their return. 67