Was the landlord and the peasant an employment or exploitative relationship? If there were no landlo

The landlord and the peasant were in a relationship of employment and exploitation, which was the main feature of the feudal social system. The exploitation of hired workers (such as long-term and short-term workers) is only one of the means of exploitation of the landlord class, as well as land rent.

Without the landlords, the peasants would not starve to death! It's liberating. With the establishment of New China and the widespread implementation of land reform, the landlord class was eliminated, and the peasants could get a share of the land and live a prosperous life with the development of reform and opening up.

Of course, there are still areas that need to be improved due to poor geographical conditions and other factors that are backward or unbalanced.

The landlord and the peasant were in a relationship of employment and exploitation. In feudal society, land was a valuable resource in the hands of a small number of people in society. Landlords usually own large amounts of land, while peasants often have little or no land.

The landlords exploited their labor power on the peasants and reaped the benefits by hiring peasants to cultivate the land. Lacking land and other means of production, peasants had to rely on the jobs provided by landlords to make ends meet. Therefore, the relationship between the landlord and the peasant is one of exploitation and exploitation.

If the landlord did not exist, the farmer could lose an employer, but he would not starve to death. In an agrarian society, farmers can rely on their land and labor to produce food and other agricultural products, and obtain necessities and other goods through market exchange.

In reality, of course, the relationship between landlords and peasants was complicated. In some areas, cooperative and reciprocal relationships between landlords and peasants also existed. But from the point of view of feudal society as a whole, the relationship between the landlord and the peasant was based on exploitation and being exploited.

In feudal society.

The landlord and the peasant were in an exploitative relationship, the peasants cultivated the landlord's land, paid rent to the landlord for most of the grain, and left a small part of the ration to support their livelihood in the event of a natural disaster.

If they can't pay the rent, they have to borrow grain from the landlord's family to eat. In the old society, the peasants could starve to death without land, but in the new society, the landlords were overthrown, the land was distributed to the peasants, and the peasants' lives were getting better and better.

The landlords exploit the class, without the landlords, there is no exploitation, there is no exploitation, there is no oppression, and the peasants will not live better if they grow some farms and marry themselves, how can they starve to death!

China is a democratic society, in fact, many people are very much pursuing freedom and equality, but I saw a netizen on the Internet asking a more interesting question, farmers plant the landlord's land and pay rent to the landlord, why do the landlords squeeze the peasants?

Now we all know that land is state-owned, land is not owned by individuals, and the land owned by each person only has a certain number of years, and all of them must be recovered after reaching a certain number of years. That is to say, nominally the peasants have the right to use these lands, but at that time the peasants did not have land, and the landlords owned the land, so if the peasants wanted to obtain grain, they had to plant the landlord's land, but the landlords were unwilling to cultivate the land, so the peasants planted the landlord's land, and they had to pay rent to the landlord, or they worked for the landlord for free, so the landlords oppressed the peasants.

In fact, I think the person who asks this question is more funny, because this is an obvious fact in the eyes of many people, farmers have freedom and rights, before many people said that capitalists exploit workers, in fact, it is the same as this reason, now the peasants have become the owners of the land, there is no previous landlord, but at that time the landlords owned these land, and these peasants did not have land, they had no food, and the landlords owned a lot of land, and the landlords themselves would not plant it themselves, Instead, they chose to rent out the money, so the landlord will always make a profit.

Now there is no such oppression and exploitation in China, in fact, this is also a kind of social progress, but before the peasants have been in the process of being oppressed, they cannot resist, because these peasants have no capital to resist, they have no land and no money, if they do not plant the landlord's laughing land, they will not be able to live.

Because the peasants have no education and the peasants do not know how to safeguard their own interests, they will be oppressed by the landlords and dare not speak out.

Because the landlords felt that the peasants were particularly easy to bully and were not qualified to resist, they would always oppress the peasants.

The harvest is different from year to year, some are drought years, and the harvest is very small, but the rent collected by the landlord does not change because of this.

In ancient times, the landlord and the peasant was a kind of employment relationship, if the landlord did not have a peasant to work for him, then he would also starve to death, and it was impossible to be so rich, if the peasants did not have a landlord, then they themselves did not have land, and they did not know how to work, no income, they could not support their families, and they would starve to death.

In ancient times, when there were landlords, it belonged to the feudal society at that time, and all the peasants had to work for the landlords at that time, because at that time only the landlords had land, and the others had nothing, and if they didn't work for the landlords, they would be starved to death, so they would go to the landlords to work, and the peasants didn't eat as well as pigs at that time, but the peasants still had to work, because they knew that if they didn't go, there would be nothing.

Moreover, at that time, the rights of the landlords were very large, and they had to do whatever they wanted, and if they didn't do it, they would be beaten, regardless of the elderly, children or women. As long as you don't obey, you will be beaten, and if someone stops you during this period, then that person will also be beaten, so the society at that time was feudal and dark, but there were also those scholars who resisted, but they were stopped by the peasants, because the peasants said that if you go to make trouble, we will have nothing to eat, and we will starve to death.

And at that time, when working, there would be a division of long-term workers and short-term workers, long-term workers were not allowed to go home without permission, they could only stay here, short-term workers could go home, and they were very free, so, in ancient times, farmers and landlords were a kind of employment relationship, just like the current work.

It is an interdependent relationship, if there is no landlord, the peasant will not be able to get too high a life guarantee, but if there is no peasant as a landlord, he is just a name, well, there is no practical effect.

Although the peasant and the landlord were an employment relationship in ancient times, in fact, the two could be said to be an interdependent existence at that time, because the landlord needed to rely on the peasants to work, and the peasants also needed the landlord's welfare.

The peasants and the landlords must be in an interdependent relationship, without which no one can have enough to eat and no money, so they are indispensable and inseparable.

I think it should be interdependent, because the landlords rely on the peasants to make money, and then the peasants? It is up to the landlord to give money, so to be honest, the two must be related to each other, and they are inseparable.

I believe that the ancient peasant and landlord were not in an employment relationship, but the two have always been interdependent. In ancient times, peasants and landlords thought it was a buying and selling relationship, and there was no machine farming at that time, so it was not an employment relationship.

This must be an interdependent relationship, if the peasants do not go on strike, then the landlords will lose their income, and the landlords will lose their income, then they will not be able to survive, and if they cannot survive, they will not be able to pay wages to the peasants, and it will be even more impossible for the peasants to survive.

Yes, farmers with low skills and skills can only make a family have something to eat, otherwise it is difficult to make a living, which is also a mutually beneficial relationship.

Personally, I think it is interdependent, if there are landlords, but there are no peasants to farm the land, there is nothing in the end, but if there are peasants but no landlords, and peasants have no land, there is no harvest.

The tenant relationship is a feudal personal relationship, and the tenant is dependent on the landlord in person, which is a feudal exploitation relationship in nature. Employment Relations.

It's not the same as the relationship between tenants and returns.

The employment relationship is a form of capitalism.

The relationship between the worker and the worker is the one who has personal freedom, and the only one who does not have the choice to balance hunger is to be employed, which is capitalist exploitation in nature.

Therefore, the tenant and the landlord are not in an employment relationship.