Peasantry and Politics

Autor govori o istraživanjima teme seljaštvo i politika i konstatira da je ona samo djelomično obrađena. Najčešće su istraživana dva temeljna korpusa problema: odnos SKJ (KiPJ) i seljaštva i tematika seljaštva u agrarnoj politici. Glavni razlozi marginalizacije ove teme leže u činjenici nestanka seljaštva sa historijske scene u Jugoslaviji i promjene odnosa SKJ prema seljaštvu pa je općenito jenjavao društveni interes za ovu tematiku. Seljaštvo je pod utjecajem industrijalizacije kao historijskog procesa izgubilo povijesni legitimitet političkog faktora. S druge strane, u teorijskim (koncepcija socijalizma), ideologijskim razlozima (utjecaj vladajuće partije — SKJ) i sistemskim (socijalistička država) autor vidi nestanak konkretne političke snage seljaštva. Posebno je značajno za položaj seljaštva što SKJ gubi interes za ovu društvenu grupu. Autor pokazuje kakav je bio interes KPJ u predratnom razdoblju i kakav položaj ima seljaštvo s obzirom na strukturu članstva u SKJ. Seljaštvo bi moralo imati veći utjecaj na agrarnu politiku i, općenito, na društvenu politiku. Autor nalazi za to uporište u sindikatu seljaka. Legitimitet sindikata nalazi se u sferi rada i ostvarivanja neposrednih interesa seljaka, koje ne može ostvariti samo u teritorijalnoj samoupravi (kao građanin) niti putem preživjelih institucija koje danas, tobože, zastupaju seljake.The author discusses the theme of peasantry and politics and concludes that it has only been partially analysed. Most frequently two sets of problems have been investigated: the relation between the League of Communists (previously KPJ) and peasantry, and the position of peasantry in agrarian policy. The main reasons for the marginalization of this theme lie in the fact that peasantry disappeared from the historical scene in Yugoslavia and the changing attitute of the League of Comunists towards peasantry, which lead into a gradual decrease of society’s interest in this theme. Under the influence of industrialization as a historical process the peasantry lost its historic legitimacy as a political factor. On the other hand, the author sees the disappearance of the actual political force of peasantry in ideological reasons (influence of the ruling party — KSJ) and the system (socialist state). It is especially significant for the position of peasantry that SKJ has lost interest in this social group. The author indicates the interest of KPJ in the pre-war period and the position peasantry had in view of the membership structure of SKJ. Peasantry should have more influence on agrarian policy, and generally, on social policies. The author found support in this respect in the peasants’ Trade Union. Legitimacy of the Trade Union can be found in their sphere of work and realization of immediate interests of the peasant, which they can not realize either in territorial self-management (as a citizen) or by the way of absolute institutions, which today play the role of ’would-be’ representatives