During a previous study regarding the historical substructure, we examined the sources in order to comprehend the situations which were to follow. Here we will be studying the ideological substructure which allowed the historical substructure to evolve.

On page 112 of Volume 36, Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) wrote: “The peasantry is a conservative class in relation to the proletariat, because it aims for an artificial self preservation.”

This assumption would become prevalent in the perception of the Soviet Union, quite the contrary occurring for the case of China.
This was bound to stigmatize the farmers permanently, who in turn will become a natural target for the Soviet system.
The implementation of this philosophy which was concerning the classes, is explained by Lenin through his work:
The State and the Revolution.
“The controlling will truly become, catholic, general and pan-social, so as a result no one will be able to escape from it, you would not be able to hide anywhere.”

The controling constitutes everything for the system.
It shouldn’t allow for heresies, and consequently it’s necessarily catholic, in order to remain orthodox.
This means of course, that there must be a restructuring of the classes.
In volume 39 page 279, Lenin writes the following:
“Socialism is the degradation of the classes.
The dictatorship of the proletariat did whatever it could for this degrading “

And he makes it clear thereon in order to avoid confusion:
“The class struggle doesn’t disappear during the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it merely takes other forms.”

The struggle doesn’t end with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and for this reason it remains necessary even after the revolution.
But this excuse allows the same for the state of terror, because as an institutionalized State it obtains the monopoly of violence.
On page 281, he explains the context with more precision.
“During the dictatorship of the proletariat, democracy goes through to a completely new phase, and the class struggle reaches its peak, dominating everything, and in all its forms.”
In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t allow for a balance.
It functions exclusively as the dominant strategy.
It doesn’t remain upon details.
And the confrontation between the peasantry and the working class, is merely a detail in relation to the entire context as he describes it on page 316 of Volume 39.
“No concession could take place here, on the part of the Soviet power. It’s not regarding an issue of struggle between the worker’s power and the peasantry, but re: a matter of existence of the entire socialism and of the Soviet power. “

The struggle as a whole is not an easy task for Lenin.
As there are many and multiple resistances and reactions.
The struggle is not only a class struggle, but a social one as well, because the revolution is in contradiction even with the everydayness which continues the tradition.
“To win over a big centralized bourgeoisie, is a thousand times easier than to win over millions and millions of small households, which, with their daily invisible, elusive and disintegrating activities implement the same results, which the bourgeoisie needs in order to be restored.”
This confession on page 28, of Volume 41, is quite decisive.
It actually means that it’s not all about a struggle, but regarding an actual war, which will inevitably become a civil war, if an out of context victim is not invented.
This victim would become the enemy, and the enemy target.
The answer is to be found on page 193 of Volume 43.
“The small range owners are our opponents.
The micro-ownership entity is our most dangerous enemy. “

The Farmers were doomed to become victims.
It was all about the arrival of the precise time of the implementation, right after the ideological and the historical substructure.