Do you know what conclusion I made during the communication here?
"Totalitarian" states try to hide the truth from their population, and "democratic" states try to spread lies actively among their population
Almost all posts about the history of Russia are based on statements of people who are not Russian historians.
This topic is open to prove the existence of historians in Russia
Leonid Milov / Леонид Милов (1929-2007).
"
Russian Plowman and Special Aspects of Russian Historical Process / Великорусский пахарь и особенности российского исторического процесса" - (The first edition was in 1998).
From the annotation:
"The main feature of the territory of the historical core of the Russian state from the point of view of agrarian development is a very limited time for fieldwork. The so-called "period without plowing", equal to seven months, is fixed in the state documentation in the XVII century. In other words, for many centuries the Russian peasant had about 130 days for agricultural work (taking into account the prohibition of work on Sundays). In addition, about 30 days were spent on haymaking. As a result, a peasant with one plow (that is, having a family consisting of 4 people) had about 100 working days for the cultivated work.
For comparison, we recall that in a large farm in the middle of the 18th century, 59.5 man/days were spent per hectare of arable land (for all types of work) and about the same amount went to arable land in farms of the North of France at the same time. However, making such labor, the French farmer had ten months of working time a year, and in Central Russia this period was half that. Therefore, in Russia only a large feudal farm for this period, possessing the possibility of concentrating the corvee labor force for summer work, could fulfill all the minimum set of works required from the point of view of the norms of agriculture. As for the peasant, he had only 22-23 working days for all types of arable land (if he was employed at his master's work, then he had half of this time).
From here come all the troubles of the Russian peasant: he could normally handle only an extremely small plot of arable land. If he had to necessarily increase it, he could do this solely at the expense of his own sleep and rest and by attracting the labor of children and the elderly. The second option of expansion of small arable land could be realized only at the expense of sharp decrease in level of agriculture (up to dispersion of seeds on a not plowed field) that led to low and very low productivity, a ploughing of the soil and constant threat of hunger which in Russia was very frequent guest.
Such a tragic situation was aggravated by the grave conditions of the development of cattle breeding, the main of which was the unusually long (up to 7 months) period of keeping cattle in the stall, which required large stocks of feed. Hence the bitter paradox of Russia: vast spaces, meadows and almost no fodder for livestock (and this is basically straw), so there were few cattle, and there was very little fertilizer for the fields, not to mention the food resources of cattle breeding, marketing opportunities its products, and so on.
The extreme weakness of individual peasant farming in the conditions of the East European Plain was compensated by the enormous role of the community during almost the whole thousand-year history of Russian statehood. Due to the difference in natural and geographical conditions for thousands of years, the same amount of work for Western has always satisfied more of "natural needs of the individual" than in Eastern Europe. In Eastern Europe, for thousands of years, the aggregate of these, the most essential needs of the individual was significantly greater than in the West of Europe, but the conditions for satisfying them are much more complicated and worse. Consequently, the volume of the aggregate surplus product of society in Eastern Europe was always much smaller, and the conditions for its creation are much worse than in the main Western European societies."