what makes a worker more important than a farmer?

[Black Sheep]

And not only a farmer who owns a scrap of land.

Isnt a field worker the same as any worker?One who works for a big landowner for example.

Also,lets imagine a scenario like the paris commune.
Such a revolution will need the cooperation of the farmers in order to get food, for which they will provide the stuff they produce.Wont they depend solely on the production of the local/national agriculture in order to survive? (if we additionally consider embargo possibilities on the revolted country)

Wont a reactionary agricultural proletariat be the death of the revolution?

In Cuba the motto was 'give land to the people', in Russia the farmers where a bunch of medieval goat worshippers who followed the bolsheviks' orders for all they cared.
In Spain i don't know for sure, so inform me.

These thoughts just jumped in my mind,so correct me if necessary.

[Psy]

And not only a farmer who owns a scrap of land.

Isnt a field worker the same as any worker?One who works for a big landowner for example.

Also,lets imagine a scenario like the paris commune.
Such a revolution will need the cooperation of the farmers in order to get food, for which they will provide the stuff they produce.Wont they depend solely on the production of the local/national agriculture in order to survive? (if we additionally consider embargo possibilities on the revolted country)

Wont a reactionary agricultural proletariat be the death of the revolution?

In Cuba the motto was 'give land to the people', in Russia the farmers where a bunch of medieval goat worshippers who followed the bolsheviks' orders for all they cared.
In Spain i don't know for sure, so inform me.

These thoughts just jumped in my mind,so correct me if necessary.
The industrial worker has the power to reduce the necessary labour time of the farmer. The industrial engineer has the ability to transform the task of farming from one of actual farming to maintaining farm machinery (that performs actual tasks related to farming) through industrialization of farms.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In some countries where there is a real rural culture, the workers will definitely have to win them over to our side.

In the US and most of Europe, agricultural workers are not that different than industrial workers. In California, it's called "factories of the fields" because there are hardly any small farms or family farms and agriculture is done by big owners who hire managers who in turn get laborers.

[Prairie Fire]

It is was never a matter of "more important". It is a matter of who is better poised to lead a thorough socialist revolution.

Also, the distinction between rural and urban is not necesarily the case here. There is a distinction between Proletariat and Peasantry, but that distinction is also not a matter of urban vs rural.

In most countries (except for parts of asia, perhaps,), there is no longer a peasantry.
Those who labour on farms as a farm-hand (especially big monopoly factory farms) would be classified as a worker, not a peasant.

The difference is that a peasant grows crops on a landlords land, and surrenders a portion of their harvest to the land lord. A worker, on the other hand, sells their labour in exchange for a wage, which is the relation that corresponds to contemporary farm workers.

Farmers, that is, those who own farms, would fall into the petty-bourgeoisie. Asking why the farmers are not likely to be at the head of the revolution is asking why the petty bourgeoisie is not the class for deep going socio-economic change.

It is not a matter of better or worse, exhalting one exploited class or sector of labourers over the other. It is a matter of who is
in the position to carry out a succesful revolution to the end, and which class is capable of bringing about deep revolutionary transformations in the society.

The Working class works, they operate the means of production for the day to day maintainance of humyn life and society at large. For this reason, they hold tremendous power in their hands in contrast to other classes, because just as they are the creators of all that is useful, the generators of all value and profit, and the force that carries out every objective for the sustenance and proliferation of humyn life, they can just as easily stop doing these things that are vital not only to the exploiting classes, but to the functioning of all countries on the planet earth.

This tremendous power that the workers hold in their hands, coupled with their political disenfranchisement, their economic exploitation and their subjagation by class society makes them not only the most likely class to lean towards revolution, but the only class that has the means and the will to carry out a succesful socialist revolution.

The peasantry, because they were historically producers as well, and faced all of the same class oppression, exploitation and disenfranchisment as the workers, were early on identified as a great ally of the working class, and in many succesful socialist revolutions the peasantry played a major role (in the October Revolution, in the Albanian revolution where the majority of the population and revolutionaries were drawn from the peasantry), but never a leadership role.

The peasantry is not in a role to lead, because as a class, they are defined by survival agriculture (as well as surrendering a portion of their yeild to their land lord).
They produce for themselves (and their landlord), rather than society at large. As long as they can have their plot of land to grow crops on, and sustain themselves and their family, then the transformation of the society and mode of production around them is of no concern to them.

The worker, on the other hand, in addition to having the means to bring the exploiting classes to their knees, survives not by survival agriculture, but by selling their own wage labour. They also produce for society at large, rather than just to sustain themselves. Because the working class has always worked socially and depended on social production to meet their own needs, after revolution they will still rely on social production rather than persynal sustainance production, to meet their needs.

This is why the working class is the class for social change, and even in countries where they were numerically small (ie. Albania), they were still providing the leadership in the socialist revolution, and in the period of socialist construction afterwords.


As for the other classes, they can not lead for obvious reasons:

The petty-bourgeoisie ( in this case, the farm owners,) struggles under the weight of competition with the bourgeoisie for markets and profits, which is why sections of this class are often radicalized during revolutionary periods. However, after the bourgeoisie has been removed through revolution, and the threat to their small buisnesses and enterprises has been removed, they have no desire nor economic need to socialize their own buisness or abolish their own exploitive relations with their own workers. The petty-bourgeoisie are employers and exploiters in their own right, and for this reason the emancipation of the working class is generally not in their class interests, hence they settle for the bourgeois revolution, but can never play a leadership role in a socialist revolution.

The Lumpenproletariat also can not lead a revolution. While some Maoist organizations have taken the analysis that the lumpens are the new revolutionary class, it just isn't so. The lumpens are generally poor and disenfranchised, yes, and they have need to put food in their stomachs and a roof over their own heads, but that is all. They have no relation to the means of production, except that of a small time predator. Because they perform no tasks necesary to the functioning of society at large, they lack the political power of the working class, as well as the social organization and the material conditions to meet their own needs only through cooperation and meeting the needs of society as a whole. It is also important to note that there is a difference between Lumpenproletariat and Un-employed workers.
Essentially though, the Lumpen can not play a leadership role without becoming workers themselves, so it is the working class that is still the class for change.

The Bourgeoisie can't lead anything more than a bourgeois democratic revolution. It should be obvious why they can't lead a socialist revolution... They are at the top of the totem pole, and have no desire to be de-throned. The bourgeoisie as a class exists on the exploited labour of the working class, and contributes nothing to the maintainance of society. Through this system of oppression and exploitation, their needs are well met, so what benefit would it be to them, to cease exploiting their workers, and and have the class playing field leveled?

I hope that clarifies a bit. Anyone can feel free to add anything or elaborate on any of my positons here.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I really don't see how a Marxist analysis of the peasantry is really appropriate anymore. In Marx's time, farmers were like craftsmen who built and sold their wares like anyone else. Now farmers struggle to get by and often require government intervention. Even if the distinction between workers and farmers was justified, it certainly isn't now.

A person's economic and political circumstance are not the sole reasons that can motivate people to revolt. Marxism minimizes the diversity of personal motivations that can lead someone to revolution. He is generalizing. Farmers can certainly play an important role in a revolution. They can't because they don't work for a wage? What's the rational behind that view?

[Prairie Fire]

Dooga,

So did you read what I just wrote above, or no?


really don't see how a Marxist analysis of the peasantry is really appropriate anymore. In Marx's time, farmers were like craftsmen

1. Farmers are not peasants.

Working in the agricultural sector or a rural environment doesn't make you a peasant, and most countries don't even have a peasantry anymore (which is why I find it anachronistic when some parties, especially Maoists, still call for a "Joint dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry").

Farmworkers who work for a wage are proletariat.

Farm owners, who own their crops/stock and land, and sell their yeild to live, are petty bourgeoisie.

If you don't see how a Marxist analysis of the peasantry is "appropriate" or relevant anymore, it is because you have no idea what a peasant is, and you can't be bothered to read other peoples posts before you type your own (I already covered all of this in detail, in my first post on this thread).



In Marx's time, farmers were like craftsmen who built and sold their wares like anyone else. Now farmers struggle to get by and often require government intervention.


And?

Government subsidiary= Mucho proletarian status?

So, I suppose the CEO's and controling stockholders of GM are also "workers", because they have also recieved government bail-out and subsidiary. :rolleyes:

2. A worker (proletarian) is defined as someone who has nothing sell but his wage labour. If you own your own buisness or other means of production, you are not a proletarian.

Farmers own their own their land, own their crops and/or livestock. Even if they work on this land themselves, it doesn't matter.
Performing their own labour is enough of a distinction to seperate them from the bourgeoisie, but it does not make them a "worker" in the class sense of the term, because "workers" (proletarians) are those who sell their wage labour to sustain themselves. If you are selling goods and products to sustain yourself, from your own means of production, than you are a petty-bourgeosie.

You say craftsmen sold their wares "like anyone else". Well most of everyone else generally doesn't "sell their wares".

In Feudal times, most people were confined to serfdom and peasantry, and sustained themselves through survival agriculture, while passing on a portion to their landlord. In Marx's time, up to the present day, in most of the industrialized countries, the people sold their wage labour to sustain themselves, and in un-industrialized countries, the old feudal relations prevailed. Either way, the class of land-owners and self employed craftsmen was always small in relation to society at large, and still is.

Farmers, despite their labour, are not workers because they own their own means of production, and sustain themselves by selling the surplus and yeild that is generated through these means of production. Not to mention, many farmers employ others to work for them, so they are wage-labour exploiters in their own right. They are petty-bourgeoisie. Their farm hands, who are working for wages, are workers.

Again, all of this was explained in my first post.



Even if the distinction between workers and farmers was justified, it certainly isn't now.


Yes it is, because the class relations to the means of production haven't changed.

If you own property that generates a surplus, and sell commodities produced from your own means of production (with or without exploited labour), then you are petty-bourgeoisie.

If you sustain yourself by selling your wage labour, you are a proletarian.

The difference in revolutionary potential between the two is explained in detail in my above post.


A person's economic and political circumstance are not the sole reasons that can motivate people to revolt.

Thank you for that class vague statement that proves the necesity for scientific analysis of the situation at hand.

"People" "revolt" for several reasons, but not every "revolt" is a revolution, let alone a socialist one, which I was under the impression that this is what we were talking about.

The Bourgeoisie and propertied exploiting classes "revolt" against feudalism, as they did in the USA and France, to establish their own state dictatorship and to rise out from under the aristocratic thumb.

Oppressed colonial peoples "revolt" for national soveriegnty and the right to decide their own affairs.

In terms of a socialist revolution though, my analysis was correct, and the relations of classes to the means of production not only determines their necesity for revolution, but also puts the power in their hands for them to be able to do so.

And by the way, yes, it is economic and political circumstances (aka Material conditions) that lead the people to working class revolution. While these revolutions can assume different forms and vehicles, on different specific pretexts of oppression, the underlying factors for revolution remain the same. To suggest otherwise is metaphysical and irrational.



Marxism minimizes the diversity of personal motivations that can lead someone to revolution.


Oh, do tell.

Like what? "My boyfriend left me. All power to the working class!"

These alleged "Persynal motivations" that you cite are simply manifestations of Economic and political circumstances. Beneath these motivations and specific oppressions is a political or economic base.


He is generalizing. Farmers can certainly play an important role in a revolution.

( bangs head against computer desk).

As I have been re-itterating in my second post on this thread, you really should have read my first post on this thread.

Here is a quote from yours truly, only one post above yours:

Prairie Fire

The petty-bourgeoisie ( in this case, the farm owners,) struggles under the weight of competition with the bourgeoisie for markets and profits, which is why sections of this class are often radicalized during revolutionary periods. However, after the bourgeoisie has been removed through revolution, and the threat to their small buisnesses and enterprises has been removed, they have no desire nor economic need to socialize their own buisness or abolish their own exploitive relations with their own workers. The petty-bourgeoisie are employers and exploiters in their own right, and for this reason the emancipation of the working class is generally not in their class interests, hence they settle for the bourgeois revolution, but can never play a leadership role in a socialist revolution.

The petty bourgeoisie generally does play a role in most revolutions. This is just basic Leninism. However they lack the means, and the resolve to play a leadership role, which goes to the working class by virtue of the position that they occupy.

I never claimed that the petty bourgeoisie can't take up a gun every once in a while, and neither did Marx. I did claim, however, that after all of the fighting for a socialist society is said and done, you will have an interesting time getting them to stop exploiting their own workers, and to socialize their own means of production that they possess (ie. Kulaks).

The issue is not, and never was, wether or not a non-wage labourer can pick up a gun against oppression on the part of the bourgeoisie. The issue is, can they also construct a socialist-communist society afterwards (especially if a classless society without private property would conflict with their own economic relations to the society at large)?


They can't because they don't work for a wage? What's the rational behind that view?

I must sound like a broken record, but... well, we've talked about this. You know what I'm going to say.


Let me attempt to simplify, for metaphysical petty-bourgeois "leftists" with brains the size of walnuts:

I didn't say they can't "revolt".

I said that they can't play a leadership role, and especially can't build socialism in the period post-revolution.

To understand why that is, read and re-read my posts as necesary to comprehension.

[Black Sheep]

PF,in the way you described it, modern day peasantry are a remnant of serfs?

[Prairie Fire]

Well, not necesarilly... I guess that there is generally not much difference, except that Serfs are indentured to their land lord(although occasionally peasants are as well).

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Perhaps you've analyzed this argument to the point that the answer seems more obvious to you than it actually is.

Reliance on government to survive doesn't necessarily mean someone will side with the government. If one's master gives them a decent life, it doesn't mean they will side with them. Some people value independence regardless of their economic situation, and they will not be satisfied until society is more free. Look at libertarianism as an example of this.

Someone who benefits from the capitalist system necessarily won't act against it? Some people are somewhat altruistic. To say an entire class can't participate in a revolutionary leadership role because their interests are to the contrary is rather unrealistic.

I think Marx's categories may be valid generalizations. That's about it. Furthermore, why is the bourgeoisie being destroyed switching the class interests of the petty-bourgeoisie? Making additional profit isn't necessarily greater than establishing an egalitarian society. People seem to value equality independently of financial circumstance in many cases.

Who is to say most capitalists actually like exploiting other people? It could very well be the economic circumstances that force them to do so. Furthermore, once the petty-bourgeoisie is free from threats, they also have nothing to protect their exploitation. They have the realization that there is no means to enforce their political power.

You could very well be correct, but you have to assume I'm much stupider. I do not see the entire argument and how the conclusion follows from it.

[Prairie Fire]

Okay, three times is the charm...



Reliance on government to survive doesn't necessarily mean someone will side with the government.


That wasn't my point. I was simply trying to refute your analysis that farmers are part of the working class because they have hit hard times and are generally government subsidized. I was simply pointing out that the same criteria currently applies to GM and Chryser, and their respective bourgeois shareholders.

I wasn't trying to make the point that government subsidy invalidates their revolutionary potential.

It is their class relations to means of production and the working class that make them a problem post-revolution. Initially they could, and historically they generally do, take up guns as part of a revolutionary tide, but there are different motivations behind their participation.


Some people value independence regardless of their economic situation, and they will not be satisfied until society is more free. Look at libertarianism as an example of this.


Socialism is not built on a foundation of wishes and dreams, though (unlike libertarianism).

The general urge to rise against oppression is a fairly primitive instinct, present in all humyn beings living under injustice.

Builiding socialism, on the other hand, is not simply willed into existence, even from the desires of the majority of people. If this were the case, the world would be a whole different map. All of the formerly socialist countries still would be, and several bourgeois ones would be as well.

It takes more than just the desire to fight, and the fact that several triumphant revolutions have been over-turned in the 20th century points to the fact that other factors than just the ability to take up a gun and shoot it at oppressers are needed to build a socialist society.

Also, you continue to use class vague terminology. Some "people" value independence... Well which classes constitute this "people", and who's political power is this newly formed "independence" based on. While socialists are in the buisness of bringing about independence ( National-liberation) as well, independence is itself a manifestation of politcal power, so the question of whom this "independence" serves is critical.

The Bourgeoisie (who are "people") desired "independence" from Aristocracy and the constrictive modes of feudalism. In this, they got their wish in most of the countries of the world, and smashed feudalism into oblivion in the USA and France and elsewhere.

Did these revolts of oppressed "people" lead to an egalitarian classless society, free from want or need on the part of all peoples, with political power in the hands of the disenfranchised?

No.

Despite the slogans ( "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite,") and ideals used to mobilize the masses of working people into fighting reserves for the bourgeoisie, the "independence" achieved for the bourgeoisie did not result in the emancipation of the exploited peoples, wether it be the newly arisen working class (the proletariat) or the peasantry (and in some countries, serfs as well).

Because "Independence" was vested in the bourgeoisie as a class, their class interests became dominant. As the bourgeoisie is a class that exists soley on the exploitation of labour, no lofty amount of ideals on their part can emancipate the exploited peoples without changing their very class relations themselves (that is, ceasing to be bourgeoisie). Even the more lofty paper declarations of Jeffersonian democracy, while a qualitative improvement on previous feudalism, were not enough to truly emancipate the disenfranchised toilers.

In de-colonization cases in the 20th century, where "independence" was achieved for a national bourgeoisie from a foriegn imperialist bourgeoisie, again, this resulted in only luke-warm emancipation. Nasser/ Mosadeq style nationalization and token progressive programes were advanced, but ultimately class society and exploitation was preserved intact.

This is why the class character of a revolution is so important. No amount of lofty ideals can trump empirical reality, so a class that exists on exploitation of labour before a revolution is not likely to found a new society post-revolution with an end to all exploitation of labour as it's new basis, you dig?

Yes, all "people" are generally capable of taking up political power through the barrel of a gun, but this is the not issue. The issue is, who is capable of bringing about a classless society without want, need, or exploitation of labour?

Class is very important.


Someone who benefits from the capitalist system necessarily won't act against it? Some people are somewhat altruistic. To say an entire class can't participate in a revolutionary leadership role because their interests are to the contrary is rather unrealistic.

It is not unrealistic, it is a basic fact, confirmed and re-confirmed in most revolutions.
The only exceptions to this, is if a persyn passes from one class to another.

Again, persynal ideals, while important, are not enough to stand alone. If they were, Albania would still be socialist.

It is not just that the proletariat many times have the will to overthrow class society, and establish socialism. It is that they have the means and necesity to do so, found in their relations to production.



Furthermore, why is the bourgeoisie being destroyed switching the class interests of the petty-bourgeoisie?

Both of my above posts addressed to you cover this.

The tendency in the era of imperialism, and in most capitalist society, is towards a concentration of capital and shares of global markets in large monopoly capitalism. Now, "mom and pop" capitalists are resentful of this, because they can't compete with the monopoly capitalist juggernaut.

A small fruit grower has a hard time keeping up with large cash crop plantations. The big monoploly corporation, in this case, produces more product, makes more profits, and can therefore sell their products for cheaper and squeeze out the petty-bourgeois competition. The "mom and pop" (petty bourgeoisie) capitalists take issue with this.


Post revolution, however, with the big plantation company now in ruins, the small fruit grower is free to expand, free to gobble up markets and breath easily.

Do you think that this small fruit grower, after eliminating the competition that was crushing them, is now also willing to stop exploiting their own wage labourers, and socialize their own fruit orchards?

History says no.

Keep in mind also the general difference between the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie: The Bourgeoisie are the big capitalists, the alpha-capitalists at the top of the heap that reign supreme in exploitation of labour and profit.

The petty-bourgeoisie are the aspiring alpha capitalists, aspiring to exploit more labour and make larger profits.

Walmart began as a "mom and pop" discount store in Arkansas.

McDonalds used to be a resturaunt exclusively in San Bernardino, California.

Exploiters of labour are Exploiters of labour, no matter what the size of their operation, or what egalitarian concepts they may entertain. A petty-bourgeoisie, if given the opportunity (ie. a void of competition, created by the overthrow of the current bourgeoisie), will grow and explode into a full blown new bourgeoisie.

It is entirely rational and the only realistic outlook. If you exist on exploited labour,than until you cease to exist on exploited labour, your aspirations are always going to include at least keeping a portion of labourers in a state of exploitation.

This is an outook that is anathema to a revolutionary transformation of society, rather simply propogation of the same old, same old.


Making additional profit isn't necessarily greater than establishing an egalitarian society.


To who? To you and I?

Anyways, "additional" or "lesser" profits are incidental. All profit achieved through exploitation of labour is what we are trying to abolish. If you can't see why an exploiter is incapable of abolishing exploitation (with-out changing their own class relations in the process), then I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you.


People seem to value equality independently of financial circumstance in many cases.

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z142/GEOFFREYFEAR/FacePalm_picard.jpg

1. No , calls for true equality are almost never independent of financial circumstances.

Wether it be womyns sufferage, the abolition of slavery in the US, the Tamil struggle fof national self determination.... All are intricately connected to material conditions, especially the economic situation they face at the time.

The most oppressed of every society are generally the most economically exploited as well, in terms of labour.

2. Again, your inability to understand or grasp the different classes and the role that they play, leads to statements like this one.

Who are these "people" that you refer to that are in favour of "equality"? What is their economic class relations to production?

What type of "equality" are we talking about here? Who does this "equality" serve?

In the city state of ancient Athens, the "people" (the Athenian-born un-indentured male population of the city) were very much in favour of "equality" and democratic suffrage amongst the the Athenian-born un-indentured male population of the city. Women, Slaves, immigrants and children, on the other hand, did not fit into this paradigm of equality and political enfranchisment.

The American declaration of independence begins with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed ....with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Their subsequent constitution of the United States then goes on to state that only 3/5th's of all indentured labour (slaves, mostly of African heritage) would be counted as a persyn, Slavery is not un-lawful, and sufferage will be established for un-indentured caucasian males, and no one else.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The "people" in a society marked by class divisions are not one cohesive whole, and "equality" is also not a neutral absolute, usually just a manifestation of political power of one demographic, and the degrees of enfranchisement that are allowed within this demographic, while these rules do not apply to others excluded from it.

Please adopt a class outlook on history and the world situation in the future.


Who is to say most capitalists actually like exploiting other people?

I don't know wether to finish this reply, or find you and slap you with a big chunk of lumber.

""Like" or "dislike" are bourgeois abstractions, completely irrelevent to the situation at hand and the reality of wage labour exploitation.

It reminds me of a program on a local TV station in my city ,trying to get workers to "cope" with unemployment. The first thing they emphasized was that "it wasn't persynal" when an employer (exploiter) lays a worker off. Being fired doesn't mean that an employer (exploiter) "doesn't like you".

Who gives a shit if they "like" me or not? Unemployment is unemployment, and the inabiltiy to procure shelter, food and other commodities for the daily continuation of your own existence and others is a harsh reality that exists completely independent of bourgeois metaphysics!

Again, who gives a shit if an exploiter "likes" living on exploiting labour ?

To give you an example of where I'm coming from, consider the war in El salvador during the eighties.

Many members of local right wing paramilitaries and death squads (ie. ORDEN) were farmers, peasants and working people who faced the situation of being granted privilages if they joined the death squad ( Agricultural loan credits, year round employment at various buisnesses) or certain death and torture if they refused (being accused of communism themselves).

These members of these death squads were often coerced and press-ganged into these paramilitary units that commited torture, massacre, rape and wanton humyn rights violations against the local working people, to preserve bourgeois rule.

From a bourgeois moralist point of view, you could ask wether or not they "liked" murdering suspected dissidents and raping local womyn.

From a scientific socialists point of view, wether or not they achieved persynal enjoyment from these acts is 100% irrelevant. The undisputed reality of the situation is that they did commit these acts, and are now liable and responsible for them.

Back to the point you raised, wether or not an exploiter "likes" exploitation is irrelevant to their position as an exploiter.
Unless they were to immediately abolish the exploitation that they survive off of, and change their class relations to production in the process, than a bleeding heart exploiter is still an exploiter.

My example differs from those who exist on exploited labour, because no one has ever had an assault rifle pointed at their heads and told to make profits off of the work of others. I can't possibly imagine a situation where a persyn is living off of the profits generated by others against their will.


It could very well be the economic circumstances that force them to do so.

The economic circumstances "force" a humyn being to live off of the labour of another humyn being?

Are you playing devils advocate just to piss me off?

If this is so, why aren't we all exploiters? Why doesn't everyone make their rent by exploiting the profits generated by another persyns labour?


Furthermore, once the petty-bourgeoisie is free from threats, they also have nothing to protect their exploitation

Which is why the struggle intensifies after revolution as well, as some elements who were radicalized into the revolution against the bourgeoisie are exploiters themselves, and won't part with their own assets and severe their own ties of exploitation.

Just because there is no framework of a bourgeoisie state to protect their private property and exploitation of labour, doesn't mean that they won't resist collectivization and socialism themsleves( ie. Kulaks).


They have the realization that there is no means to enforce their political power.


As long as they exist as a class, they exist as their own means to enforce their political power. If they have no bourgeois state to protect their position of exploitation, they will protect it themselves, and become militant against the new triumphant revolutionary forces ( once again, look back to the Kulaks in the USSR).

Besides, until revolution triumphs on a world scale, reactionary forces and exploiters can look outside the political borders of their own country for assistance from foriegn bourgeoisie, with a common enemy in socialism (ie. Mujahideen).

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'll think on it some more. It's a little clearer. I guess I'm a little mixed up because I've been reading up on inequality aversion. Some people seem to be able to operate on some sort of altruistic-based rationality that seems somewhat confrontational to Marxism.

I suppose Marx's class-based analysis can explain this dislike of inequality as it exists only when equality is already present.

[eyedrop]

And not only a farmer who owns a scrap of land.

Isnt a field worker the same as any worker?One who works for a big landowner for example.

Also,lets imagine a scenario like the paris commune.
Such a revolution will need the cooperation of the farmers in order to get food, for which they will provide the stuff they produce.Wont they depend solely on the production of the local/national agriculture in order to survive? (if we additionally consider embargo possibilities on the revolted country)

Wont a reactionary agricultural proletariat be the death of the revolution?

In Cuba the motto was 'give land to the people', in Russia the farmers where a bunch of medieval goat worshippers who followed the bolsheviks' orders for all they cared.
In Spain i don't know for sure, so inform me.

These thoughts just jumped in my mind,so correct me if necessary.

Not that we have much farmers here, about 2,3% of total employment, but they haven't been that bad historically as most of the agricultural processing has been done by a couple of agricultural cooperatives owned by the farmers, mainly Tine and Nortura, not that they are much different from regular corporations these days. So the agricultural industries may even be easier to restructure to a communist society than the rest of society.

[Angry Young Man]

Has anyone mentioned the fact that industrial workers usually live and work in cities? I read that in the UK, out of a population of 60m, 300k live in the countryside - the same number as live in Cardiff, so if you do a size-comparison of the countryside vs. Cardiff, you may understand why the worker is 'more important' (more likely to carry a revolution).

[Revy]

I think that those farmers that own the land but don't employ anyone, are actually referred to as peasant proprietors. This is probably archaic, but it still applies IMO. Proprietor refers to the fact that the land is the property of the farmer. They're more known as "small farmers" today.

[Psy]

I think that those farmers that own the land but don't employ anyone, are actually referred to as peasant proprietors. This is probably archaic, but it still applies IMO. Proprietor refers to the fact that the land is the property of the farmer. They're more known as "small farmers" today.
That is rare, most farms employ seasonal labor.