First, the reason. For peasants, it was simply impossible to collectivise them. Land issue was a burning wound for centuries, peasants would stand only for petty bourgeoise land reform, nothing else. For artisans, it was for simplicity case - state organisation of most functions performed by them was way too much hassle, and they weren’t very dangerous. Plus modernisation of society, urbanisation and progress of mechanisation and production reduced their numbers steadily (peasants too, especially in relative terms as always with the development).
How it went. Overall, both peasants and artisans joined the counterrevolution like good little petty bourgesoisie exactly as Lenin predicted and warned, but their strenght was not really impressive and not very deciding. Deciding was that very many workers joined the counterrevolution too, and then we had the standard practied hijacking protest US method.
Interesting, how did that turn out?
Passable i guess.
First, the reason. For peasants, it was simply impossible to collectivise them. Land issue was a burning wound for centuries, peasants would stand only for petty bourgeoise land reform, nothing else. For artisans, it was for simplicity case - state organisation of most functions performed by them was way too much hassle, and they weren’t very dangerous. Plus modernisation of society, urbanisation and progress of mechanisation and production reduced their numbers steadily (peasants too, especially in relative terms as always with the development).
How it went. Overall, both peasants and artisans joined the counterrevolution like good little petty bourgesoisie exactly as Lenin predicted and warned, but their strenght was not really impressive and not very deciding. Deciding was that very many workers joined the counterrevolution too, and then we had the standard practied hijacking protest US method.