What Is “Kulakism”
An Analysis of Its Essence
Conditions of Emergence and Analogies
Kulakism is a phenomenon that emerged under the specific conditions of the Russian countryside, combining elements of both capitalist and pre-capitalist relations. This makes it difficult to find direct analogues in Western European development.
In Western Europe, agricultural development followed a different trajectory. The dissolution of peasant communities was accompanied by the formation of clearly defined property rights and a transition to farming based on private ownership—often through the direct displacement of peasants.
In England, for example, during the period of enclosures, peasants were массово driven off the land as common fields were converted into private pastures. This process was driven by rising demand for wool, as sheep farming became more profitable than traditional agriculture.
Dispossessed peasants were transformed into wage laborers—either in agriculture or in urban industries. In this way, a labor market emerged alongside a class of wage workers and farmers operating within a system of established private property.
In Eastern Europe—such as Prussia and Poland—large estates often retained elements of coercion. However, these were primarily landlord-based systems, where dependency was imposed from above rather than emerging within the peasantry itself.
In Southern Europe and Latin America, systems of debt peonage existed, where peasants became effectively bound to creditors. Debts accumulated, were often inherited, and restricted mobility.
Yet even in these cases, such relations typically developed outside communal structures and were tied to large landowners rather than to an upper stratum within the peasantry.
Russian kulakism differed in a fundamental way.
It emerged within the peasant commune and did not immediately dismantle it, but instead coexisted with it over a long period. The kulak functioned simultaneously as a market actor and as a local center of power.
He combined:
— market mechanisms (credit, trade, wage labor);
— with systems of debt dependency, including “vodka debts”;
— and control over local economic life in the village.
It is precisely this combination—of market relations and coercion, of formal freedom and material dependency—that makes kulakism difficult to compare directly with Western European agrarian forms.
Historical Preconditions: The Formation of Kulakism
Kulakism did not suddenly emerge in the 20th century. It was the result of a long process of differentiation within the peasantry.
Before 1861
Even under serfdom, the countryside was not homogeneous.
There were rent-paying peasants engaged in trade and crafts, state peasants with greater autonomy, and relatively wealthy households within the commune.
Elements of differentiation were already present: some accumulated resources, while others fell into dependency through debt, аренда, and unequal exchange.
After the Abolition of Serfdom
The 1861 reform accelerated this process dramatically.
Peasants gained personal freedom but were integrated into the market:
— they had to pay redemption payments and taxes;
— sell their produce;
— and take loans in times of poor harvest.
This intensified differentiation:
— some peasants became impoverished and turned into laborers;
— others strengthened their position, expanded their хозяйства, and engaged in trade and credit.
By the late 19th century, clear divisions had emerged between poor peasants, middle peasants, and wealthier households.
Thus, by the beginning of the 20th century, the economic foundations of kulakism were already largely in place.
Early 20th Century
Agrarian reforms, particularly the Stolypin reforms, accelerated the individualization of farming and the development of commodity production.
Kulaks gained opportunities to:
— expand their хозяйства;
— hire labor;
— produce for the market.
This marked the formation of a rural bourgeois stratum—the basis of kulakism.
After the 1917 Revolution
The revolution eliminated the landlord class but did not eliminate differentiation within the peasantry.
During the 1920s:
— commodity-money relations persisted;
— private trade continued;
— wage labor was used;
— credit and debt mechanisms remained in place.
During the NEP period, some households became even stronger.
Thus, kulakism did not disappear after the revolution but continued to play a significant role in rural life up until collectivization.
Economic Essence
Stripped of rhetoric, kulakism can be understood as a form of rural bourgeoisie.
Its key features included:
— the use of hired labor (permanent or seasonal), often under conditions of economic or debt dependency;
— leasing of land, tools, and livestock;
— moneylending—loans in cash, grain, or alcohol at interest;
— grain procurement and trade intermediation.
Loans in the countryside were issued not only in money but also in grain or alcohol. In the case of alcohol, the widespread practice was to sell “on credit” through taverns.
Repayment was made in grain, a share of the harvest, or through labor obligations. Interest could be explicit or embedded in unfavorable exchange terms.
Thus, a system of debt dependency was formed, in which consumption itself (including through taverns) became a mechanism of economic control. The peasant became bound by obligations that limited economic autonomy and forced them to surrender part of their labor or product.
This—not mere wealth—is the essence of kulakism.
Social Role in the Village
The kulak occupied a distinct position in rural society.
On the one hand, he provided credit and access to markets; on the other, he reinforced dependency and social differentiation.
Through debt, leasing, and trade, a stable system of subordination emerged:
— middle peasants regularly transferred part of their product under terms effectively set by the kulak;
— poorer peasants often lost their хозяйства and became laborers.
In this way, the system of economic relations within the village reproduced kulakism itself, functioning largely to sustain these relations of dependency.
Collectivization and Conflict
Collectivization meant dismantling the economic foundations of kulakism:
— the loss of dependent labor (poor peasants working as hired hands);
— the loss of suppliers (middle peasants entering collective farms);
— the elimination of kulak control over trade.
This deprived kulakism of its economic function, rendering it an archaic form incompatible with the new organization of agriculture.
Kulaks understood that they were losing their position and control over the village.
Thus, the conflict was not accidental but structural—and largely inevitable.
Resistance to Collectivization and the Soviet Response
In response, part of the kulak stratum engaged in active resistance.
Economic Sabotage
— hoarding grain;
— destroying reserves;
— mass slaughter of livestock;
— damaging tools and crops.
Violence and Intimidation
— attacks on collective farm leaders and activists;
— intimidation and beatings of peasants joining collective farms;
— looting of collective farm households;
— sabotage within collective farms;
— organization of uprisings in some regions.
Soviet Response: “Dekulakization”
Faced with resistance, the Soviet state implemented a policy aimed at eliminating kulakism as a social stratum.
This involved not only suppressing resistance but dismantling the entire system of economic relations that sustained it.
Key measures included:
— banning the use of hired labor;
— prohibiting moneylending practices;
— restricting private trade, including alcohol trade;
— deportation of the most resistant elements;
— confiscation of property and incorporation into collective farms.
This policy became known as “dekulakization.”
In practice, its implementation involved:
— administrative pressure;
— misclassification of social categories;
— arbitrary designation of individuals as “kulaks”;
— violence and local excesses;
— settling of personal scores under the guise of class struggle.
It is important to note the gap between the theoretical definition of kulakism and its practical application.
Nevertheless, within the logic of the policy, the goal was to eliminate the economic basis of dependency in the countryside.
Transformation of Rural Society
Collectivization fundamentally transformed rural life.
Destroyed were:
— systems of private credit;
— kulak-controlled trade networks;
— debt dependency mechanisms;
— the use of hired labor within the village.
In their place emerged:
— collective farming;
— centralized procurement;
— new systems of distribution;
— increasing mechanization of production.
This was not merely a change in economic form, but a transformation of the entire social structure of the countryside.
The kulak, as an economic figure, disappeared along with the relations that made him possible.
Important Clarification
It is essential to avoid simplifications.
— Not all resistance to collectivization was “kulak” in nature.
— Middle and poor peasants also participated in protests, including those dissatisfied with implementation methods.
— Not all repressed individuals were kulaks in a strict sense.
Historical reality included both:
— an objective conflict of economic interests;
— and the distortions of administrative enforcement.
Conclusion
Kulakism was the result of a long historical process:
— differentiation within the peasantry;
— the penetration of market relations;
— the formation of systems of debt dependency.
Its essence was defined not by wealth, but by function:
— control over credit;
— use of hired labor;
— extraction of income from the dependency of others.
Kulakism represented a transitional form—combining capitalist mechanisms with pre-capitalist forms of subordination.
This is why the conflict surrounding it in the late 1920s was not accidental, but structural.
It was a столкновение between two models:
— one based on private accumulation and localized dependency;
— another aimed at centralized organization of agriculture.
Kulakism was not merely a social label, but a historically formed system of economic relations—one whose disappearance was tied not to isolated decisions, but to a transformation in the structure of rural society.