Small farmers and the working class from RCP thread

[Revy]

So, no, it doesn't phase me when someone whines, "Well, Marx and Engels weren't working class". No, and a Chrysler ain't a horse and buggy, neither. That doesn't mean I should support letting today's petty bourgeois and bourgeois into a workers' organization any more than it means I should invest in buggy whips or wooden wagon wheels for my car.

I think the key factor in being "bourgeois" is not just the fact that they own the means of production, but that they have an exploiting relationship to the means of production. I think the "petty bourgeois" would be small business owners and entrepreneurs, who obviously would have no interest in being in a revolutionary workers' party.

You're not saying that party members can't be workers and hobby artists, but if they manage to make a living out of their art and become successful, that's when they become a problem? I guess you would rather them be a Van Gogh than a Pablo Picasso (Picasso was a communist).

I still don't think self-employment is exploitation anymore than masturbation is sex. Who is being exploited for capital by this person? Themselves? Yet they are dependent on their own labor, which they sell to others through their work. Sounds more proletarian than bourgeois to me.

[Martin Blank]

Note to Self: I really need to save the content I post in these kinds of discussions, since the same arguments seem to come up over and over and over again. Sigh!


I think the key factor in being "bourgeois" is not just the fact that they own the means of production, but that they have an exploiting relationship to the means of production.

This statement is vague and misleading. It is not the means of production that are exploited, but those working the means of production. What makes the bourgeoisie is that they own the means of production (capital) and they can extract surplus value (profit) from the production of commodities by using collective labor-power purchased through the payment of wages. This differentiation between your definition and mine is important.


I think the "petty bourgeois" would be small business owners and entrepreneurs, who obviously would have no interest in being in a revolutionary workers' party.

The petty bourgeoisie is larger than just small business owners and entrepreneurs. It also includes managers, independent producers (artists, farmers, other small business types, etc.), bureaucratic officials, the officers of the state (police, sheriffs, bailiffs, prison guards, military officers and NCOs, etc.) and independent professionals (doctors, lawyers, consultants, technicians, etc.). These other elements are the organizers and administrators that facilitate the extraction of surplus value; their skills and abilities to aid in the maximizing of this extraction and accumulation process for the bourgeoisie are their means of production. All sectors of the petty bourgeoisie own their means of production and utilize them to extract their own small-scale surplus value.

This is fundamentally different from the proletariat, which has no means of production from which to extract surplus value. Indeed, they have only their labor-power (their ability to work means of production owned by others), by which they extract surplus value for others, receiving only a fraction of the full value they produce in the form of wages.


You're not saying that party members can't be workers and hobby artists, but if they manage to make a living out of their art and become successful, that's when they become a problem? I guess you would rather them be a Van Gogh than a Pablo Picasso (Picasso was a communist).

Calling it a "problem" is placing the question on a moralistic level, to which I will not condescend. What I will point out is that from the moment that a proletarian is placed in a fundamentally different social being -- in this case, that of a petty bourgeois professional artisan -- a contradiction begins to develop between their new social being and their longtime consciousness. Eventually, this contradiction will be resolved in one of two ways: the old consciousness will be replaced by a new consciousness based on the current social being, or the new social being will be abandoned in favor of the old. The former is the unconscious transformation that accompanies "class mobility"; the latter is the conscious rejection of "class treason".


I still don't think self-employment is exploitation anymore than masturbation is sex. Who is being exploited for capital by this person? Themselves? Yet they are dependent on their own labor, which they sell to others through their work. Sounds more proletarian than bourgeois to me.

You're concentrating on the forms, not the content. Exploitation is the form which extraction of surplus value takes under definite conditions. The real issue, as shown above, is the extraction of surplus value itself. On this basis, the difference between the bourgeois and petty bourgeois is more quantitative than qualitative, whereas the difference between either of these classes and the proletariat is vastly qualitative.

[Robocommie]

Calling it a "problem" is placing the question on a moralistic level, to which I will not condescend. What I will point out is that from the moment that a proletarian is placed in a fundamentally different social being -- in this case, that of a petty bourgeois professional artisan -- a contradiction begins to develop between their new social being and their longtime consciousness. Eventually, this contradiction will be resolved in one of two ways: the old consciousness will be replaced by a new consciousness based on the current social being, or the new social being will be abandoned in favor of the old. The former is the unconscious transformation that accompanies "class mobility"; the latter is the conscious rejection of "class treason".

That really strikes me as a long winded, perhaps overly verbose way of saying, "Some folks make it big and then they sell out."

[Martin Blank]

That really strikes me as a long winded, perhaps overly verbose way of saying, "Some folks make it big and then they sell out."

Well, yeah. I can accept that critique. The point, though, was to remove the argument from a "good/bad" or "problem/not-problem" dichotomy and put it on the basis of material conditions.

[Robocommie]

Well, yeah. I can accept that critique. The point, though, was to remove the argument from a "good/bad" or "problem/not-problem" dichotomy and put it on the basis of material conditions.

Fair enough, my apologies if my wording was too harsh.

[Martin Blank]

Fair enough, my apologies if my wording was too harsh.

Harsh?! What harsh?! I self-criticize harsher than that! :D

[x371322]

The petty bourgeoisie is larger than just small business owners and entrepreneurs. It also includes managers, independent producers (artists, farmers, other small business types, etc.), bureaucratic officials, the officers of the state (police, sheriffs, bailiffs, prison guards, military officers and NCOs, etc.) and independent professionals (doctors, lawyers, consultants, technicians, etc.). These other elements are the organizers and administrators that facilitate the extraction of surplus value; their skills and abilities to aid in the maximizing of this extraction and accumulation process for the bourgeoisie are their means of production. All sectors of the petty bourgeoisie own their means of production and utilize them to extract their own small-scale surplus value.

I agree with almost everything here. Almost. Not all "independent professionals" own any means of production. What about day laborers, tradesmen, etc. who sell their labor power on a job by job freelance basis? They're self employed, yet own nothing but their own labor power. Lets say, for example, I made my living by taking freelance PC repair jobs. (I don't, far from it, but I do actually do this on the side) Anyway, even though I'd be an "independent professional", and apparently not working class, I'd still be selling my labor power to make a living, just like every other worker, only on a job by job basis. Would I be allowed in your organization in this example?

Also, what about workers who work in a CoOp? They're self employed, and actually own their own means of production, so would they be written off as petty-bourgeois and rejected? And what about unionized workers who own stocks as part of their benefits package?

I confess I don't really see much difference between someone who paints a picture and sells it, and someone who sells their labor power. In both cases you've got someone selling something they posses to make a living. As long as they're not exploiting others, I don't see the problem, so why exclude them?

[Martin Blank]

I agree with almost everything here. Almost. Not all "independent professionals" own any means of production. What about day laborers, tradesmen, etc. who sell their labor power on a job by job freelance basis? They're self employed, yet own nothing but their own labor power. Lets say, for example, I made my living by taking freelance PC repair jobs. (I don't, far from it, but I do actually do this on the side) Anyway, even though I'd be an "independent professional", and apparently not working class, I'd still be selling my labor power to make a living, just like every other worker, only on a job by job basis. Would I be allowed in your organization in this example?

If this was your means of living, and not just a side job to make ends meet (i.e., not your primary social being), then you have a small business. Your tools and skills are your means of production and you extract surplus value by renting out access to your means of production on contract to your customers. Now, yes, the amount of surplus value you accumulate may be a pittance compared to that of Fortune 500 corporations, and your small business may operate on the margins of the economy (i.e., outside of business tax, incorporation and licensing laws), but the facts remain.

If you were in the working class for a lifetime and began this recently to survive, and generally as a temporary measure until you could find a real job, then your past social being would be enough to allow for membership. However, if this is what you've been doing since you entered the economy and took your place in the mode of production, then we would see you as a petty bourgeois; you could be a supporter, but not a member.


Also, what about workers who work in a CoOp? They're self employed, and actually own their own means of production, so would they be written off as petty-bourgeois and rejected? And what about unionized workers who own stocks as part of their benefits package?

The unionized worker who has had their pensions put into the stock market (which accounts for 99.9 percent of workers who "own stocks") do not hold any kind of ownership stake in anything. Most of the time, what they have is "non-voting stock", which is nothing more than a piece of paper that has a dollar amount attached to it -- a miniscule fraction of the corporation's assets. This is given in exchange for the money they would have otherwise received as part of their retirement pension. The form is different, but the content is essentially the same.

Co-op employees need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, IMO. Co-operatives range from those that are such in name only to those that should rightly be called venture-capital partnerships. The specific circumstances and relations within each need to be examined. (Incidentally, this is also why a blanket call in support of co-ops is unprincipled for communists. The term, under capitalism, has become too vague.)


I confess I don't really see much difference between someone who paints a picture and sells it, and someone who sells their labor power. In both cases you've got someone selling something they posses to make a living. As long as they're not exploiting others, I don't see the problem, so why exclude them?

It's the question of ownership. Communists seek to abolish private ownership of the means of production and distribution. Not just "big business" private ownership, but all private ownership of capital, including that capital owned by the petty bourgeoisie. An artist who sells their paintings is able to extract surplus value (profit) from what they produce, because they own their own means of production. A worker cannot extract surplus value from what they produce, because a worker does not own anything other than their labor-power (i.e., their ability to work and produce) and has to sell that labor-power for wages to someone who does own means of production.

Exploitation, being a form of extraction of surplus value for large-scale production, is not the line of demarcation for communists because it is merely the form. It is the extraction of surplus value (profit) that is the dividing line -- the class line.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So what exactly is the difference between, say the painter again, selling his commodity, for where he owns his means of production, & extracts surplus value, compared to an industry where the workers own the means of production & are going down the same line? Would surplus value still be created? And would they be similar?

[Martin Blank]

So what exactly is the difference between, say the painter again, selling his commodity, for where he owns his means of production, & extracts surplus value, compared to an industry where the workers own the means of production & are going down the same line? Would surplus value still be created? And would they be similar?

Before I answer this, can you clarify what you mean by "[and] are going down the same line"? Also, are you talking about a co-op when you say "an industry where the workers own the means of production", or an ESOP, or something else? In any event, let me know and I'll answer this when I return tomorrow.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Before I answer this, can you clarify what you mean by "[and] are going down the same line"? Also, are you talking about a co-op when you say "an industry where the workers own the means of production", or an ESOP, or something else? In any event, let me know and I'll answer this when I return tomorrow.

Co-op, & that was just a repeat of what I said before it lol, I'm tired. meaning the workers selling their commodities, in which they own the means of production. sorry bout that.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Nearly all working artists are proletarian. They are wage employees who do graphic design etc.

The number of people whose primary income comes from selling paintings at art galleries is vanishingly small. Double digits at best. And they usually depend on one or two major patrons, so the relations of production are basically feudal - like nuns or tenure-track professors.

[x371322]

If this was your means of living, and not just a side job to make ends meet (i.e., not your primary social being), then you have a small business. Your tools and skills are your means of production and you extract surplus value by renting out access to your means of production on contract to your customers. Now, yes, the amount of surplus value you accumulate may be a pittance compared to that of Fortune 500 corporations, and your small business may operate on the margins of the economy (i.e., outside of business tax, incorporation and licensing laws), but the facts remain.

But how is that any different than what the working class does? They also own "skills" after all. Not to mention that a lot of companies hire their workers on a contract basis. What about those workers? It seems to me that you're being so anal (for lack of a better word) about how you define the means of production. Let me say that as a computer nerd, you don't really need any tools. A screwdriver is all you need (and usually not even that these days). So now anyone who owns their own screwdriver and a little know-how is no longer working class? That's messed up.

If you asked me, I'd say anyone who genuinely works for a living, and does not exploit others, should be considered. Labor is labor, whether I'm selling it to a jerk of a boss, or doing it on my own.

I wish the WPA all the success in the world, I really do. But I think it's safe to say I'll pass on ideological grounds.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

(I'm not answering for Miles here, but simply providing an answer on my own.)

I hear this sort of thing a lot. It's fine and dandy to talk vaguely about class on the left, but once you start actually drawing class lines -- which show many that their family, friends and *gasp* even they don't belong to the proletariat -- you're told that you're being anal or pedantic, or that you're just plain wrong.

"What do you mean I'm not exploited?," I hear. "I work 50 hours a week in my store, and I barely make enough to pay the taxes and the bills!"

No one said self-employed workers don't work or anything like that. It's about position in society, which is determined by one's position in relation to the means of production, and class interests.

Small business owners have the tools and/or skills to make a living on their own. But their work often isn't glamorous or easy. The only way they can escape from this toil is to hire others to do the work for them. The petty bourgeois shop keeper moves forward by exploiting other people.

The working class does not own or control any means of production, and thus has no way to survive other than to sell their labor power to someone who does, for a wage. The only way workers can escape from this wage-slavery is to abolish property in the means of production (to transform it into something owned by no one, and use by everyone). The worker moves forward by eliminating all exploitation.

[Robocommie]

That's a common problem among leftists.. a "What about me and mine?" moment.


You know what? Fuck you. If you think my compassion for my late grandfather is a problem, then you can kiss my ass.

[Palingenisis]

You know what? Fuck you. If you think my compassion for my late grandfather is a problem, then you can kiss my ass.

Whats parasitical about being a working farm?

They grow and produce stuff.

[Robocommie]

Whats parasitical about being a working farm?

They grow and produce stuff.

I mean hey, I understand the concept of the proletariat and the petit-bourgeois. I said my grandfather was technically petit-bourgeois. And yet, even though I acknowledge this, and they acknowledge the hardships faced by the lower echelons of the petit, apparently their suffering doesn't actually mean anything. Or at the very least, it doesn't actually count for anything.

Well, fuck that.

Ultra-rigid interpretations of class structure don't serve the cause of social justice.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm sorry, where did anyone say anything about their suffering not actually meaning anything?

I said that they don't belong to the proletariat, which is the only truly revolutionary class today.

Thanks for the emotional outburst though. I'm almost forgot where I was for a moment before that.

[Palingenisis]

Ultra-rigid interpretations of class structure don't serve the cause of social justice.

Im not being ultra-rigid at all..."Petit-bourgeois" covers a lot of ground.

I would consider working farmers very close to being proletariat, if they cant actually be called working class...I mean herion dealers are petit-bourgeois and there is no way I would compare them with working farmers at all.

[Robocommie]

I'm sorry, where did anyone say anything about their suffering not actually meaning anything?

I said that they don't belong to the proletariat, which is the only truly revolutionary class today.

And I'd dispute that. I'd argue that the reality is hazier than that, supported by the arguments of Frantz Fanon and Huey P. Newton.



Thanks for the emotional outburst though. I'm almost forgot where I was for a moment before that.I relate a story about the human condition facing one of my loved ones at the hands of capitalism, and rather than try and relate to me on a human level in response, you come back with this pithy little remark, "Oh how droll, a "me and mine" moment."

Emotional outburst? How the hell can you expect me to be cold and emotionless when I'm talking about my family's personal story? You're a condescending prick.

[Robocommie]

Im not being ultra-rigid at all..."Petit-bourgeois" covers a lot of ground.

I would consider working farmers very close to being proletariat, if they cant actually be called working class...I mean herion dealers are petit-bourgeois and there is no way I would compare them with working farmers at all.

I wasn't saying that to you, I appreciate your perspective on the issue. I'm sorry for not making that clearer.

[Raúl Duke]

My main concern though with the outright dismissal of the petit bourgeois is how it reflects on my own personal concerns. My grandfather was a hog farmer for most of his life. He owned a small farm, raised pigs and sold them at market - though some he slaughtered to be able to literally bring home the bacon. The thing is, technically speaking my grandfather owned the means of production, as he owned the livestock, he owned some farming equipment (which were practically museum pieces by the time I knew him) and some barns - though he never owned any land to actually grow crops on, and he always had to rent land if he was going to plant corn. But he was poor his whole life, and he worked very hard - in fact, so hard that his health was significantly affected later in life - just so that he could stay at that level of poverty he was at.

My grandfather was the last of a dying breed of American farmers - the exact same kind of people written about in The Grapes of Wrath. My mom always told me that my grandfather knew as early as the 1960s that the small farm would be crushed by large scale commercial farming, the big corporate run latifundia which drive the price of agricultural goods down and put small farmers out of work, while also abusing the land and exploiting hired hands. It was something he resisted his whole adult life, and it was only because he put so much of himself into his farm that he was able to until his health deteriorated till he was too sick to work.

I never considered my grandfather anything but working class, and I don't see why the fact that he owned a tractor and a truck which both dated from the 1950s, and a couple dozen hogs should invalidate his hardships from capitalism.

People keep placing your grandpa as petit-bourgeois...it doesn't sound he was technically petit-bourgeois to me...I mean while he owned his mean of living (except farm land for corn, which he had to rent out) yet he didn't technically hire anyone (sounds like he was self-employed.)

[Proletarian Ultra]

My main concern though with the outright dismissal of the petit bourgeois is how it reflects on my own personal concerns. My grandfather was a hog farmer for most of his life. He owned a small farm, raised pigs and sold them at market - though some he slaughtered to be able to literally bring home the bacon. The thing is, technically speaking my grandfather owned the means of production, as he owned the livestock, he owned some farming equipment (which were practically museum pieces by the time I knew him) and some barns - though he never owned any land to actually grow crops on, and he always had to rent land if he was going to plant corn. But he was poor his whole life, and he worked very hard - in fact, so hard that his health was significantly affected later in life - just so that he could stay at that level of poverty he was at.

My grandfather was the last of a dying breed of American farmers - the exact same kind of people written about in The Grapes of Wrath. My mom always told me that my grandfather knew as early as the 1960s that the small farm would be crushed by large scale commercial farming, the big corporate run latifundia which drive the price of agricultural goods down and put small farmers out of work, while also abusing the land and exploiting hired hands. It was something he resisted his whole adult life, and it was only because he put so much of himself into his farm that he was able to until his health deteriorated till he was too sick to work.

I never considered my grandfather anything but working class, and I don't see why the fact that he owned a tractor and a truck which both dated from the 1950s, and a couple dozen hogs should invalidate his hardships from capitalism.

I would bet that your grandfather never actually 'owned' much at all. He must have mortgaged pretty much everything every year to pay for hog feed, tractor fuel, seed corn, etc. and maybe made a little extra to feed his family after he paid back the bank. I know that's how my uncle's farm worked. I'd also say 'working class' is a good description for your grandfather, since it generally refers to what you do and how you live, where proletarian describes how you make a living at what you do.

The petit bourgeoisie includes many, many people who are very badly oppressed. Shoeshine boys, long-haul truckers, the mentally handicapped guy who picks up soda cans at the park for the 5 cent refund. Many of them are worse off than actual proletarians. The point is that the petit bourgeoisie is not a revolutionary class as a class. Not that individual petit bourgeoises don't have it very hard, or that they will never participate as individuals in a socialist revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

People keep placing your grandpa as petit-bourgeois...it doesn't sound he was technically petit-bourgeois to me...I mean while he owned his mean of living (except farm land for corn, which he had to rent out) yet he didn't technically hire anyone (sounds like he was self-employed.)

Self-employed people are petty-bourgeois by definition.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#petty-bourgeois

[Revy]

People keep placing your grandpa as petit-bourgeois...it doesn't sound he was technically petit-bourgeois to me...I mean while he owned his mean of living (except farm land for corn, which he had to rent out) yet he didn't technically hire anyone (sounds like he was self-employed.)

He was a "peasant proprietor". That is the technical term for the "small farmer" who does not exploit workers. I think he would be petit-bourgeois if he hired workers, but if he did not, then he was a peasant proprietor.

[Palingenisis]

He was a "peasant proprietor". That is the technical term for the "small farmer" who does not exploit workers. I think he would be petit-bourgeois if he hired workers, but if he did not, then he was a peasant proprietor.

I think the best term is "working farmer"...A farmer who does employ anyone on a permanent basis and works the land himself. Peasant usually refers to someone who rents their land.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

He was a "peasant proprietor". That is the technical term for the "small farmer" who does not exploit workers. I think he would be petit-bourgeois if he hired workers, but if he did not, then he was a peasant proprietor.

There is no peasantry in the United States.

[Robocommie]

There is no peasantry in the United States.

Well, I found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant



Though "peasant" is a word of loose application, once a market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy) has taken root the term peasant proprietors is frequently used to describe the traditional rural population in countries where the land is chiefly held by smallholders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallholder). It is sometimes used by people who consider themselves of higher class as slang to refer pejoratively to those of poorer education who come from a lower income background.
Peasant isn't a term used in the US, it never has been, but then neither is yeoman, even though yeoman traditionally refers to farmers who own small plots of land that they themselves work.

I would argue that while the term has never been used, associated as it is with the aristocratic societies of Europe, there has nevertheless been people who fit the description to a tee. I'd even argue there has been serfdom - the sharecroppers in the South, both white and black - are prime examples.

[Robocommie]

I would bet that your grandfather never actually 'owned' much at all. He must have mortgaged pretty much everything every year to pay for hog feed, tractor fuel, seed corn, etc. and maybe made a little extra to feed his family after he paid back the bank.

You know, now that I think of it, you're probably right. I can't say for sure, I mean, that's not exactly something you ask your grandfather when you're a kid. But that's certainly in keeping with everything my mom's ever said about it, not to mention how he had to run the farm. Nobody worked for him, that was sure.



I know that's how my uncle's farm worked. I'd also say 'working class' is a good description for your grandfather, since it generally refers to what you do and how you live, where proletarian describes how you make a living at what you do.

He was pretty blue collar. In fact, when he died, we buried him in one of his favorite flannel shirts and a pair of blue jeans. It just seemed completely out of character to bury him in a suit.



The petit bourgeoisie includes many, many people who are very badly oppressed. Shoeshine boys, long-haul truckers, the mentally handicapped guy who picks up soda cans at the park for the 5 cent refund. Many of them are worse off than actual proletarians. The point is that the petit bourgeoisie is not a revolutionary class as a class. Not that individual petit bourgeoises don't have it very hard, or that they will never participate as individuals in a socialist revolution.

I understand the argument - I suppose I can see your point though. However, let's be honest, petit bourgeois almost always has a negative connotation when used by Marxists, particularly when it's stated by some that they'll never allow them into their parties and in fact even speak derisively of them and their politics. Like I said, I think ultra-rigid adherence to class doctrine isn't that helpful - particularly if it leads us to categorically presume that a shoeshine boy has the same revolutionary potential as the owner of a prosperous local restaurant.

[The Vegan Marxist]

My main concern though with the outright dismissal of the petit bourgeois is how it reflects on my own personal concerns. My grandfather was a hog farmer for most of his life. He owned a small farm, raised pigs and sold them at market - though some he slaughtered to be able to literally bring home the bacon. The thing is, technically speaking my grandfather owned the means of production, as he owned the livestock, he owned some farming equipment (which were practically museum pieces by the time I knew him) and some barns - though he never owned any land to actually grow crops on, and he always had to rent land if he was going to plant corn. But he was poor his whole life, and he worked very hard - in fact, so hard that his health was significantly affected later in life - just so that he could stay at that level of poverty he was at.

My grandfather was the last of a dying breed of American farmers - the exact same kind of people written about in The Grapes of Wrath. My mom always told me that my grandfather knew as early as the 1960s that the small farm would be crushed by large scale commercial farming, the big corporate run latifundia which drive the price of agricultural goods down and put small farmers out of work, while also abusing the land and exploiting hired hands. It was something he resisted his whole adult life, and it was only because he put so much of himself into his farm that he was able to until his health deteriorated till he was too sick to work.

I never considered my grandfather anything but working class, and I don't see why the fact that he owned a tractor and a truck which both dated from the 1950s, and a couple dozen hogs should invalidate his hardships from capitalism.

First, let me say, yes your grandfather was definitely working class from what you've said, but the idea that he owned the means of production because he owned the livestock isn't necessarily true. Yes, he personally owned the stock & tools in which he did his work, but he still sold what he developed within the circulation from M - C - M. What he sold, I'm sure, was sold through a higher profit by those that bought it off of him. So, although he owned the tools to do his work, his labor was still not equal to his wages, in which means that the means of production was technically only used to profit the profiteers. In other words, he did not own the means of production. But I definitely respect your grandfather!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Talking about class here, and among leftists in general, is often like talking to a priest about evolution. How do you prove something to people who would be ruined by the truth?

The only point in even engaging in such discussions is to try to provide some clarity for folks who are genuinely inquisitive and/or may be mislead or confused by the twists and turns of those with a stake in preserving a state of confusion.

The peasantry carried over from the previous mode of production.

"The peasantry are the class of small farmers, especially in those countries which have not yet industrialised and where archaic methods of production continue in agriculture and the lack of means of communication leave the peasant masses in relative isolation from events around the country." - http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#peasantry [Emphasis added.]

They are a product of a bygone era.

"peasant n a member of a class of low social status that depends on either cottage industry or agricultural labour as a means of subsistence" (Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 2003.) [Emphasis added.]

Small farmers in the United States do not depend on their own farms for their subsistence. They are not isolated from the capitalist market. They grow crops and/or raise livestock for sale on the market. While some of they may consume some of what they farm (though decreasingly so), they procure the majority of the things they live on through the proceeds gained from the sale of their products.

And even that group has largely disappeared, as Robbocommie noted.

"There are over 285,000,000 people living in the United States. Of that population, less than 1% claim farming as an occupation (and about 2% actually live on farms). There are only about 960,000 [about 0.337% of the total pop. - NHIA] persons claiming farming as their principal occupation and a similar number of farmers claiming some other principal occupation....

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html

There are 572,500 farms in the U.S. with annual sales of less than $100,000.

Robbiecommie laments the decline of the small farmers, but things have actually vastly improved in agriculture.

"In 1935, the number of farms in the United States peaked at 6.8 million as the population edged over 127 million citizens. As the number of farmers has declined, the demand for agricultural products has increased. This increased demand has been met (and exceeded) with the aid of large-scale mechanization (the use of large, productive pieces of farm equipment), improved crop varieties, commercial fertilizers, and pesticides. The need for human labor has also declined as evidenced by the increase in agricultural labor efficiency – from 27.5 acres/worker in 1890 to 740 acres/worker in 1990 (Illinois data; Hunt, 2001)." - From the EPA link above

"The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life." - Marx

The sons and daughters of many of yesterday's small farmers are today's workers.

Capitalist agriculture is a huge step up from the labor intensive, backbreaking work of inefficient small farms. The transformation of agriculture that has taken place under capitalism has laid the foundation for the sort of mass, mechanized farming that will be required in the new, classless society we seek to construct.

The small farmer doesn't see it that way.

"Petty-Bourgeois Socialism

"....This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.

"In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian." - The Communist Manifesto

I mentioned this sort of thing earlier in this thread. The working class is the only revolutionary class today because of its social position.

Unlike the working class that can only free itself from its current conditions by eliminating property in the means of production, small farmers can only escape from their conditions by expanding their businesses and hiring others to do the work on their farms.

They can fight for better lives for themselves, but it will not lead to an elimination of classes or exploitation. That fact has been borne out in the history of the United States, with the main farmers' movement that occurred here. It didn't try to eliminate capitalism, classes, exploitation, etc. In fact, it explicitly disowned communism. Instead it tried to 'restore the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramp the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means.'

"The political activists successfully lobbied for passage of a set of political demands that included support of the Knights of Labor and the Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886. Other demands include changes in governmental land policy, and railroad regulation. The demands also included a demand for use of silver as legal tender, on the grounds that this would alleviate the contraction in the money supply that fed the inflation in prices and the scarcity of credit.

"The political activism of the Alliance gained strength in the late 1880s, merging with the nearly 500,000 member Agricultural Wheel in 1888. In the South, the agenda centered on demands of government control of transportation and communication, in order to break the power of corporate monopolies. It also included a demand for a national 'subtreasury' plan that would allow easier credit for agriculture, thus breaking the power of the centralized eastern banks over farmers in the rural South and West. The Southern Alliance also demanded reforms of currency, land ownership, and income tax policies. Meanwhile, the Northern Alliance stressed the demand for free coinage of large amounts of silver." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_Alliance#The_national_agenda

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_movement

[The Vegan Marxist]

Robbiecommie laments the decline of the small farmers, but things have actually vastly improved in agriculture.


I'll only quote this to ask, at what cost though?

[Os Cangaceiros]

words

All that means very little though if you're one of the leftists who take the position that paleo-Marxist class theory is outdated and needs updating.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

First, let me say, yes your grandfather was definitely working class from what you've said, but the idea that he owned the means of production because he owned the livestock isn't necessarily true. Yes, he personally owned the stock & tools in which he did his work, but he still sold what he developed within the circulation from M - C - M. What he sold, I'm sure, was sold through a higher profit by those that bought it off of him. So, although he owned the tools to do his work, his labor was still not equal to his wages, in which means that the means of production was technically only used to profit the profiteers. In other words, he did not own the means of production.

This is totally out of whack and has nothing to do with anything Marx said, or reality in general.

"The following features of Marx’s definition of the proletariat should be noted: (1) proletariat is synonymous with 'modern working class', (2) proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power, (3) their position makes them dependent upon capital, (4) it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat, (4) proletarians sell themselves as opposed to selling products like the petty-bourgeoisie and capitalists, (5) they sell themselves “piecemeal” as opposed to slaves who may be sold as a whole and become the property of someone else...." - http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat

Marx said, "the working-class [is] a class always increasing in numbers...."

Small farmers are in decline and have been for many decades.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

All that means very little though if you're one of the leftists who take the position that paleo-Marxist class theory is outdated and needs updating.

Of course. When the facts don't work, invent some new ones!

:thumbup1:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'll only quote this to ask, at what cost though?

At what cost have any of the advances brought about by capitalism come?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Of course. When the facts don't work, invent some new ones!

:thumbup1:

It's pretty hard to establish objective facts when it comes to "soft sciences" like sociology and economics. There's a lot of room for conjecture.

[Robocommie]

Of course. When the facts don't work, invent some new ones!

:thumbup1:

Right, because Marx was a prophet and his word is holy writ. Anyone who questions orthodoxy is obviously questioning fact.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000139917/polls_GreatJob_1525_917071_answer_3_xlarge.gif

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is totally out of whack and has nothing to do with anything Marx said, or reality in general.

"The following features of Marx’s definition of the proletariat should be noted: (1) proletariat is synonymous with 'modern working class', (2) proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power, (3) their position makes them dependent upon capital, (4) it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat, (4) proletarians sell themselves as opposed to selling products like the petty-bourgeoisie and capitalists, (5) they sell themselves “piecemeal” as opposed to slaves who may be sold as a whole and become the property of someone else...." - http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat

Marx said, "the working-class [is] a class always increasing in numbers...."

Small farmers are in decline and have been for many decades.

What does what you quoted have anything to do with what I said? What I said was that just because you own the tools in which you do your labor with, does not imply that you are the owner of the means of production, but rather big business still own it, due to the unequal wages to your labor, in which the means of production was used to make whatever commodity was sold for surplus value.

[Robocommie]

Talking about class here, and among leftists in general, is often like talking to a priest about evolution. How do you prove something to people who would be ruined by the truth?

Yeah, cause you're always right, and we're all just too stubborn or dumb to agree with you, the torch-bearer of the truth. How frustrating it must be for you, that people have the gall, or perhaps just spite, to refuse to agree with you.



Robbiecommie laments the decline of the small farmers, but things have actually vastly improved in agriculture.Firstly, I don't "lament" the decline of small farmers, what I lament is the situation facing those who remain and the situation that faced men my grandfather's age.

And how do you mean things have "vastly improved"? Improved for capital, I think you mean. I'm going to assume you don't actually live in a rural farming region, as I do, or else you'd understand the reality here. Farming is done on a vastly more industrialized level, but that's entirely the point - factory farming has vastly increased the amount of pollutants involved in farming, and also made the viability of farming more difficult for people who ARE small scale farmers. Clearly that doesn't mean a god-damn thing to you, since farmers going out of business is more or less progressive as you see it.

With the increase in large scale commercial farms, there's also a lot more people now working as hired hands for large scale landowners, and exploited as proletarians. My own brother is one of these people - and he's far from alone. Does unpaid overtime sound like progress to you?



"The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life." - MarxI can't say anything about this to Marx because he's been dead for over a century, but I resent the notion that rural life is marked by idiocy - which is apparently something you agree with, as you quoted it. It's real egalitarian of you, NHIA, to look down on us slack-jawed yokels.

Some people like living out here. Some people like being farmers, and being their own boss. It'd be nice to be able to actually afford to live while doing so.

[Robocommie]

Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

By implication. After all, if Explosive Situation states that he feels that paleo-Marxist class theory is outdated, and you basically say that that is tantamount to inventing new facts, the suggestion is that paleo-Marxist class theory IS fact. As in, set in stone. Like, tablets or something.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What does what you quoted have anything to do with what I said? What I said was that just because you own the tools in which you do your labor with, does not imply that you are the owner of the means of production, but rather big business still own it, due to the unequal wages to your labor, in which the means of production was used to make whatever commodity was sold for surplus value.Sorry, it's difficult for me to understand what you write here sometimes.

I'm not sure exactly what it is you're trying to say.

You originally said Robocommie's grandfather belonged to the working class, and misused some terminology from Marx's Capital to back up your argument.

I provided a definition of the working class that shows that Robocommie's grandfather did not belong to the working class.

I didn't think it would be necessary to break it down point by point, but apparently it is.

"proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power"

Robocommie's grandfather had other means of support: a farm, with livestock, implements and facilities.

"it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat"

Robiecommie's grandfather did not "expand capital."

"proletarians sell themselves as opposed to selling products like the petty-bourgeoisie and capitalists"

Robiecommie's grandfather didn't sell himself. He sold products from the farm he owned.

[Robocommie]

Do me a favor, NHIA - stop referring to my grandfather. You didn't know him, you didn't know anything about him or his life, you still don't.

I know I brought him into the conversation, but it's starting to get weird now.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Do me a favor, NHIA - stop referring to my grandfather. You didn't know him, you didn't know anything about him or his life, you still don't.

I know I brought him into the conversation, but it's starting to get weird now.

Yes, let's all agree to drop that subject. Refer to small farmers in general if need be.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Can we be specific on what we mean by farmers as well? As in, there are different types of farmers really. There are those who farm, but also work as a cropper for those who own the farm, whether it be small or large. Such as the sharecroppers during the great depression who worked for the white farmers. They were a type of farmer, but was also merely considered as a slave instead of someone who farms or helps out in the farming process.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, cause you're always right, and we're all just too stubborn or dumb to agree with you, the torch-bearer of the truth. How frustrating it must be for you, that people have the gall, or perhaps just spite, to refuse to agree with you.

I don't expect petty-bourgeois socialists to accept the facts. That was my point.

By admitting that it is the working class alone that is the revolutionary force capable of abolishing property in the means of production and with it class and exploitation, the petty-bourgeois socialist puts himself out of a job.


Firstly, I don't "lament" the decline of small farmers

So you say, but then...


And how do you mean things have "vastly improved"?

Instead of a single family toiling away for long hours to produce only enough food to feed a few people, a handful of people can now mechanically plant, grow and harvest enough food to feed thousands. Livestock production has as also progressed, becoming more much efficient and less labor intensive.


I'm going to assume you don't actually live in a rural farming region, as I do, or else you'd understand the reality here.

No, thankfully I don't. My dad does though. My mom is from the outskirts of a nearby city. After the two split I lived in the latter, though it's still a bit of a rural place; especially since all the mills closed down. I got the hell out of the whole area as soon as I could.

Another progressive aspect of capitalism is that it "created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Few people I know who've actually seen small scale farming up close, and had the opportunity to do something else instead, want anything to do with it. Most of the people I've met who idealize small scale farming have never had to rely on it for a living.

My great grandfather came from a small farm but left it behind and followed the new route north to take up employment in the coal mines as it became available. His sons and many of their sons worked the mines as well.


Farming is done on a vastly more industrialized level, but that's entirely the point - factory farming has vastly increased the amount of pollutants involved in farming

Modern agriculture is much more efficient. More is grown, land is better utilized, more is harvested per area, less work is required and less is wasted due to nature's ravages. Of course there is pollution, and more than there needs to be. The capitalists are only interested in profits. That's why they do things like mountain top removal. But that's an argument against the private ownership of the means of production, not against modern agricultural methods which allow us to feed billions of people with relative ease.


and also made the viability of farming more difficult for people who ARE small scale farmers.

Yes, the jump from one mode of production to another ruins whole classes.

Just as the industrial loom brought an end to hand weaving, industrial agricultural has brought an end to the small farm.


Clearly that doesn't mean a god-damn thing to you, since farmers going out of business is more or less progressive as you see it.

I stated many times in this very thread that self-employed people often suffer greatly, living tough lives and making little money. I don't know what you want from me. A silk kerchief soaked with tears perhaps?

The point I was making is that they don't belong to the truly revolutionary class.

Replacing arduous individual farming with large scale agriculture was one of the most progressive aspects of capitalism. It destroyed small scale farming, yes. Some farmers continued along in the loosing battle until they could no longer fight a loosing battle (or retired, or died). A few continue on. Many were forced into other sectors of the economy or got jobs and joined the working class.

But it helped paved the way for new and better things; namely the abolition of property in the means of production, classes and exploitation. It helped make possible a society of material abundance in which each contributes what they can and takes what they need.


With the increase in large scale commercial farms, there's also a lot more people now working as hired hands for large scale landowners, and exploited as proletarians.

Which means farming has been transformed from an individual task to a social task. Which means that the basis has been laid for the elimination of property in the means of agricultural production, to be replaced by its utilization by society at large.


My own brother is one of these people - and he's far from alone. Does unpaid overtime sound like progress to you?

It sounds like my stepbrother, who worked as a hand on a sheep farm (until he found easier, better paying work elsewhere).

It sounds like the bourgeoisie trying to get as much out of workers for as little as possible.

It sounds like capitalism.

You, on the other hand, sound exactly like a petty-bourgeois socialist, decrying capitalism for 'the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises... the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities....' but advocating in its place a 'restoration of the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or a cramping of the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means.'

I have no idea what your actual position is in society, but if you are a worker, you've come under the influence of another class -- one which can't offer you or anyone else genuine liberation.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Can we be specific on what we mean by farmers as well? As in, there are different types of farmers really. There are those who farm, but also work as a cropper for those who own the farm, whether it be small or large. Such as the sharecroppers during the great depression who worked for the white farmers. They were a type of farmer, but was also merely considered as a slave instead of someone who farms or helps out in the farming process.

It's true. People who farm don't make up a class of their own.

There are peasants, farm workers, petty-bourgeois farmers (owners of small farms), bourgeois "farmers" (owners of agricultural corporations)....

I don't think anyone has stated otherwise here though, have they?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Fuck you
Kiss my ass...


Do me a favor, NHIA:lol:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

By implication. After all, if Explosive Situation states that he feels that paleo-Marxist class theory is outdated, and you basically say that that is tantamount to inventing new facts, the suggestion is that paleo-Marxist class theory IS fact. As in, set in stone. Like, tablets or something.Huh?

It was Explosive Situation that characterized the definition of classes as a "paleo-Marxist theory," not me.

I never said "Marx said this so it is true."

The things Marx wrote and said that were true were so because they were based in fact, not because he said them.

I don't even consider myself a "Marxist." I've written whole pieces condemning the treatment of Marx, Lenin or anyone's works as Holy Writ (in those exact terms).

So your little attempt at a jibe falls flat.

I would have much preferred responding to an honest, reasoned response than pointing that out.

[Robocommie]

You know NHIA, I really see no reason whatsoever to continue this debate. Frankly I was kind of shocked when I first saw your reaction to my first post, and the amount of snide arrogance required to make a statement like that is pretty much in keeping with how you've been throughout this fucking thread.

You're a god-damn dogmatic theory shark, and I hate that shit. With people like you, it's less about living, breathing people (your inevitable protestations to the contrary) and more about having the right theoretical line and the correct opinion.

You're an ass.

[Saorsa]

NHIA used to be much more interesting. Now's he's just another boring dogmatic ultra-leftist.

[Obs]

NHIA used to be much more interesting. Now's he's just another boring dogmatic ultra-leftist.
I think this deserves an "Oh, snap!"

Also, NHIA, I think it's funny how you compare people who disagree with you to religious people, when you yourself seem to hold the exact words of Marx pretty sacred. A guy who died in the 1880s, genius or not, is not the ultimate authority when it comes to class structure in the 2000s-2010s.

[Jazzratt]

Also, NHIA, I think it's funny how you compare people who disagree with you to religious people, when you yourself seem to hold the exact words of Marx pretty sacred. A guy who died in the 1880s, genius or not, is not the ultimate authority when it comes to class structure in the 2000s-2010s.

It's very easy when arguing points of theory like this to accuse your opponent of simply being dogmatic if they quote a given theorotician. The thing is that a lot of your assumptions are rooted in exactly the same ideas that you decry as dogmatic or held on pure faith so it behooves you to illustrate exactly what you disagree with. Marx isn't a prophet or a writer of holy text but you still have to have a reason for dismissing his writings - unless you are actually waiting for someone who does write infallible texts in which case you'll be waiting a fucking long time.

[Obs]

I disagree with many of the Marx quotes NHIA's been posting because they no longer apply because class structure has changed because the methods of production have changed, which in turn means that the peasantry can be made to see that the oppression and hardships they face are brought on by the bourgeoisie which means that they, too, can be revolutionary which means that they are not "petit-bourgeois" or otherwise class enemies. Does that work?

[chegitz guevara]

Why is the proletariat the only class capable of destroying property relations and the profit system?

Because it is the class that has nothing else to lose. It is the class with their hands on the means of production. It is the class that, if it stops working, society immediately shuts down. It is the class that is concentrated in the locations of power, the cities. For no other class are all these things true, no matter how exploited, no matter how oppressed they are.

Exploitation and oppression are not, individually, the issue. Even capitalists can be exploited by other capitalists. The FIRE sector of the capitalist class (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) exploit the rest of the capitalist class (an everyone else), by taking the profits those classes accumulate for themselves. They bled GM to death.

It's not about oppression. Sectors of the lumpen proletariat are among the most oppressed people in America, but they have no power.

It is the intersection of exploitation, oppression, power, etc., that makes the proletariat the revolutionary class.

This hasn't changed from Marx's day.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This hasn't changed from Marx's day. Apparently it has. The mode of production changed (apparently without any accompanying revolutionary change) and classes along with it. You and I must have been asleep when this modern miracle happened.


I disagree with many of the Marx quotes NHIA's been posting because they no longer apply because class structure has changed because the methods of production have changed, which in turn means that the peasantry can be made to see that the oppression and hardships they face are brought on by the bourgeoisie which means that they, too, can be revolutionary which means that they are not "petit-bourgeois" or otherwise class enemies. Does that work?I guess it works if it helps you sleep at night. But it's not much of an argument. "I disagree" and "things have changed" don't mean much of anything on their own.

Show how a new mode of production has emerged that has created new classes and destroyed others.

Show how things have changed so drastically that the working class is no longer the revolutionary class in society.

Show how other classes can eliminate property in the means of product and eliminate classes and exploitation by simply acting in their interests.

Or maintain a belief system based on blind faith and feeling that allows any and all classes to be "revolutionaries" based on moral disagreement with the way capitalism works, and respond to serious arguments with personal attacks and asides.

Jazz is right on. People go on about being "Marxists," "Leninists," etc., but as soon as someone posts a quote from the namesake of their ideological trend they accuse the poster of "dogmatism" and "holding the words of Marx sacred." That's even more the case when it has anything to do with class.

It's easy to yell the old slogans "Workers of the world unite!" and "The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves!" But when it comes down to it, many leftists recoil from the actual implications of these phrases; especially when they belong to other classes.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

For "a guy that died in the 1880's," he sure had a good conception of what was to come. Marx foresaw the exact process we've been discussing here way back in the 1860's.

"As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation...."

I know, I know. I am a boring dogmatist. None of the above has occurred. I am just fooling myself into believing it because I worship at the alter of St. Marx.

:rolleyes:

Marx wasn't perfect. His words aren't infallible. He would never have said otherwise. But he became so well known for a reason.

As Engels pointed out: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.

"But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark."

Evolution isn't a fact because Darwin wrote Origin of Species. But he did write it, and other works. Without accepting it all at face value, it's often of value to go back and look at what he wrote.

The development of human history, class struggle and the extraction of surplus value don't exist because Marx wrote Capital. But he did write it, and much else. It's of great value to go back and read what he wrote. Especially since, as opposed to being a "pure scientist," Marx examined the world in order to change it. We do the same, and utilize the advances already made in the process.

[Vanguard1917]

And how do you mean things have "vastly improved"? Improved for capital, I think you mean. I'm going to assume you don't actually live in a rural farming region, as I do, or else you'd understand the reality here.

The reality is that life for most workers in small-scale agriculture is hell. Ask subsistence farmers in the 'third world' if they and their children enjoy having to endure daily backbreaking labour in order to survive. Millions of people risk their lives every year to escape to the world's most developed cities and away from their impoverished existence in rural backwardness and idiocy.

There is nothing to glorify or romanticise about backward farming. The 'third world' needs acces to the best agricultural technology and methods currently available so that it can free itself from rural toil and develop its economies in other, more fruitful ways. You may blame industrialised farming for being 'pollutive', but in truth it points to the future. It allows the production of more with less, and it frees countries who have access to it from devoting all their energies to farming.

And NHIA is absolutely right to criticise those whose ideology regrets the proletarianisation of labour under capitalism. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels called such people 'reactionary socialists' -- i.e. people who think that they're socialists, but who in fact uphold entirely reactionary condemnations of capitalism:

"For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeois amounts to this, that under the bourgeois régime a class is being developed which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society."

I'm no dogmatist, but Charlie and Fred had a point.

[Robocommie]

The reality is that life for most workers in small-scale agriculture is hell. Ask subsistence farmers in the 'third world' if they and their children enjoy having to endure daily backbreaking labour in order to survive. Millions of people risk their lives every year to escape to the world's most developed cities and away from their impoverished existence in rural backwardness and idiocy.

I think it's particularly funny to see you trying to convince me that life for small-scale farmers is hard under capitalism, considering that what I was originally saying in this thread was in fact that life for impoverished small scale farmers is hard, under capitalism.

I know about third world farming. We have family friends in El Salvador who are campesinos. They're brutally exploited, and sometimes don't even get a chance to work, because the landowner will frequently let the coffee beans rot in the fields if the price is too low. If there's no harvesting, there's no need for hired hands.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Jakarta_farmers_protest23.jpg/800px-Jakarta_farmers_protest23.jpg

The progressive alternative to this is land reform, as has been demanded by peasants for centuries, all over the world. Break up the large latifundias, smash the wealthy landholder's estates and redistribute it to the workers, in effect making them all small scale landowners. They will have autonomy, and they will directly reap the benefits of their own labor, giving them control over wealth with which they can alleviate their poverty. NOT doing this is dooming them to more of the same privation.

Because what exactly are you offering as an alternative? You make the claim that they'll be able to make their way into the hustle and bustle of urban life and become Joe Metropolitan. But how can that possibly be? If they're proletarian, they can't possibly have any kind of liquid assets with which to support themselves, so it'll be hard to find decent housing they can afford - and if they're from a developing country like in Central or South America, they'll probably be forced to move into a slum. And if there's no work, because of the same kind of unemployment problems that were facing the urban workers already living there, then they'll be forced to turn to prostitution or crime in order to survive. Then I'll bet they'll be really happy that capitalism saved them from the "backwardness and idiocy" of rural life instead of being given their 40 acres and a mule.

Even after socialism, there still must be autonomy in farming. Agricultural collectives are a bad idea. In state-owned collectives, the workers feel alienated from their labor because they feel they have no personal stake in the production, no more than you or I would feel we had a personal stake in the success of our employer's businesses. And in non-state owned collectives, like the Israeli kibbutzim, production was poor. The kibbutzim couldn't even attain self-sufficiency - they eventually became dependent on government subsidies just to operate.

Small plots of land, when farmed, are actually more efficient than large plots of land, despite how counter-intuitive this might seem. There's studies that demonstrate this - I came across the information not long ago in a published article backing up the argument for land redistribution in Zimbabwe. The problems facing small farms, namely the difficulties in modernizing equipment and adopt new techniques, can EASILY be remedied through established central initiatives to distribute farming equipment and provide education or specialists on loan.

You guys act like you hate farmers and people who live in the country - certainly you have no compunctions about referring to them all as backwards idiots. You're disconnected from the realities of being involved in agriculture or livestock. A little while back, NHIA made a comment about how ridiculous curved cattle corrals were, just to reduce animal stress. Evidently he's unfamiliar with the reasoning behind Temple Grandin's work, because the whole point is that if the animals become freaked out, they jam up and it's less efficient than if they just calmly walk through. This is a big damn problem with cattle dipping - in the traditional method of cattle dipping, cows would regularly drown because they'd panic on their way into the dip. Temple Grandin's methods resolve this issue. It's not just about warm fuzzy feelings.

[Vanguard1917]

Because what exactly are you offering as an alternative? You make the claim that they'll be able to make their way into the hustle and bustle of urban life and become Joe Metropolitan. But how can that possibly be? If they're proletarian, they can't possibly have any kind of liquid assets with which to support themselves, so it'll be hard to find decent housing they can afford - and if they're from a developing country like in Central or South America, they'll probably be forced to move into a slum. And if there's no work, because of the same kind of unemployment problems that were facing the urban workers already living there, then they'll be forced to turn to prostitution or crime in order to survive. Then I'll bet they'll be really happy that capitalism saved them from the "backwardness and idiocy" of rural life instead of being given their 40 acres and a mule.

So, what poor peasants should be hoping for is becoming small-scale landowners? In what sense is this totally petit-bourgeois perspective (in the most literal sense of the term) socialist?

Yes, poor peasants should own their land. But surely the setting up of a range of small businesses is not a progressive end in itself.



Small plots of land, when farmed, are actually more efficient than large plots of land

Small-scaled 'plots of land' are more efficient than large-scale industrialised agriculture? Hmm... Any evidence to back up this ridiculous claim?



You guys act like you hate farmers and people who live in the country - certainly you have no compunctions about referring to them all as backwards idiots.


No one has made such a reference. What we have said is that rural life for the poor is incredibly impoverished and dehumanising. However bad life is in the cities, it presents a million more possibilities for freedom, struggle and collective improvement than life in the country. That's why there's no mystery behind the fact that Marxists look to the cities for progressive leadership and see the urban proletariat as the class with the real revolutionary potential. The degraded conditions of life in the country are also why it is not suprising that millions risk their lives to move from the countryside to the town every year.

[Barry Lyndon]

I think it's particularly funny to see you trying to convince me that life for small-scale farmers is hard under capitalism, considering that what I was originally saying in this thread was in fact that life for impoverished small scale farmers is hard, under capitalism.

I know about third world farming. We have family friends in El Salvador who are campesinos. They're brutally exploited, and sometimes don't even get a chance to work, because the landowner will frequently let the coffee beans rot in the fields if the price is too low. If there's no harvesting, there's no need for hired hands.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Jakarta_farmers_protest23.jpg/800px-Jakarta_farmers_protest23.jpg

The progressive alternative to this is land reform, as has been demanded by peasants for centuries, all over the world. Break up the large latifundias, smash the wealthy landholder's estates and redistribute it to the workers, in effect making them all small scale landowners. They will have autonomy, and they will directly reap the benefits of their own labor, giving them control over wealth with which they can alleviate their poverty. NOT doing this is dooming them to more of the same privation.

Because what exactly are you offering as an alternative? You make the claim that they'll be able to make their way into the hustle and bustle of urban life and become Joe Metropolitan. But how can that possibly be? If they're proletarian, they can't possibly have any kind of liquid assets with which to support themselves, so it'll be hard to find decent housing they can afford - and if they're from a developing country like in Central or South America, they'll probably be forced to move into a slum. And if there's no work, because of the same kind of unemployment problems that were facing the urban workers already living there, then they'll be forced to turn to prostitution or crime in order to survive. Then I'll bet they'll be really happy that capitalism saved them from the "backwardness and idiocy" of rural life instead of being given their 40 acres and a mule.

Even after socialism, there still must be autonomy in farming. Agricultural collectives are a bad idea. In state-owned collectives, the workers feel alienated from their labor because they feel they have no personal stake in the production, no more than you or I would feel we had a personal stake in the success of our employer's businesses. And in non-state owned collectives, like the Israeli kibbutzim, production was poor. The kibbutzim couldn't even attain self-sufficiency - they eventually became dependent on government subsidies just to operate.

Small plots of land, when farmed, are actually more efficient than large plots of land, despite how counter-intuitive this might seem. There's studies that demonstrate this - I came across the information not long ago in a published article backing up the argument for land redistribution in Zimbabwe. The problems facing small farms, namely the difficulties in modernizing equipment and adopt new techniques, can EASILY be remedied through established central initiatives to distribute farming equipment and provide education or specialists on loan.

You guys act like you hate farmers and people who live in the country - certainly you have no compunctions about referring to them all as backwards idiots. You're disconnected from the realities of being involved in agriculture or livestock. A little while back, NHIA made a comment about how ridiculous curved cattle corrals were, just to reduce animal stress. Evidently he's unfamiliar with the reasoning behind Temple Grandin's work, because the whole point is that if the animals become freaked out, they jam up and it's less efficient than if they just calmly walk through. This is a big damn problem with cattle dipping - in the traditional method of cattle dipping, cows would regularly drown because they'd panic on their way into the dip. Temple Grandin's methods resolve this issue. It's not just about warm fuzzy feelings.

Ultra-left orthodox Trotskyists and left coms all too often slide into First Worldist chauvinism, racism, and classism when it comes to the role of the peasantry(there are definitely many Trotskyists who don't, btw). It is because it threatens their fantasy of being in the drivers seat of world revolution. The disjunction between their mechanical insistence that the only real revolution can come from an industrial working class that has almost ceased to exist in the United States and the fact that most of the promising revolutionary movements in the world today are occurring in nations with large peasant populations leads them to engage in hate campaigns against the revolutionary peasant movements that are ongoing in Latin America and South Asia, as well as spew vitriol against past peasant-centric revolutions in China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

[Vanguard1917]

the role of the peasantry

Meanwhile, in reality, it was Lenin who repeated over and again that revolutionary potential lies with the urban proletariat and that the peasantry should follow its leadership.

[fredbergen]

Yep, here's what one of them darn ultra-left orthodox Trotskyists wrote:


"The petty bourgeois, the peasant included, is naturally closer to the liberal than to the proletarian; he is closer as a proprietor, as a petty producer. It would, therefore, be politically ridiculous and, from the standpoint of socialism, downright reactionary, to unite the petty bourgeoisie and the proletarians in one party (as the Socialist-Revolutionaries would like to do)."

How dare them ultra-left orthodox Trotskyists call peasants petty bourgeois? It's just not nice. We're all workers, even if we ain't, right? "The people united, will never be defeated" et cetera!

That incorrigible ultra-left first world chauvinist Trotskyite was ... Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/feb/25.htm), in 1907,while he still believed that the revolution in Russia would be a bourgeois revolution (before he was won to Trotsky's theory and program of permanent revolution (http://www.internationalist.org/whatis.html)).

But what do facts matter, when the name of the game is moralist bellyaching, not Marxism?

[RED DAVE]

Ultra-left orthodox Trotskyists and left coms all too often slide into First Worldist chauvinism, racism, and classism when it comes to the role of the peasantry(there are definitely many Trotskyists who don't, btw). It is because it threatens their fantasy of being in the drivers seat of world revolution. The disjunction between their mechanical insistence that the only real revolution can come from an industrial working class that has almost ceased to exist in the United States and the fact that most of the promising revolutionary movements in the world today are occurring in nations with large peasant populations leads them to engage in hate campaigns against the revolutionary peasant movements that are ongoing in Latin America and South Asia, as well as spew vitriol against past peasant-centric revolutions in China, Vietnam, and Cuba.Let me ask you a simple question: Do you believe that the peasantry can be the leading class in a revolution?

RED DAVE

[Proletarian Ultra]

Peasants revolt all the time, with justice on their side. And it doesn't do a damn thing unless the proletariat is in the lead. Peasants have formed the majority of many successful socialist revolutions but the proletarian party has always been in hegemonic position.

Compare the Maoists in Nepal with the Maoists in Peru. The Prachandists were able to infiltrate the slums of Kathmandu; the Senderos failed utterly to make it in Lima. Consequently one has advanced revolution while the other has set it back decades.

[Robocommie]

I would say that in a truly democratic revolution, the peasants have no need to lead, only to participate. If they participate in the revolution and their demands are ignored and shut out, it's not democratic.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I would say that in a truly democratic revolution, the peasants have no need to lead, only to participate. If they participate in the revolution and their demands are ignored and shut out, it's not democratic.

"(2) From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation." - Marx, "Estranged Labor"

[chegitz guevara]

Small-scaled 'plots of land' are more efficient than large-scale industrialised agriculture? Hmm... Any evidence to back up this ridiculous claim?

Efficiency is not a universal standard. There's a great article in Monthly Review, "How to Visit a Socialist Country," which demonstrates this point repeatedly.

So, what I'm sayin' is it depends on what you're trying to measure as to whether you can make or dismiss a claim of efficiency.

Still, Robbocommie should have defined his terms and provided evidence for a claim like that.

[Robocommie]

Still, Robbocommie should have defined his terms and provided evidence for a claim like that.

I had mentioned I found the citations in an article on Zimbabwe. I've had my reply to this thread worked out in my head for a few days, I just can't be bothered to post it. Honestly I don't see this conversation as productive in any way. Internet conversations are notoriously entrenched, and there comes a time when it's just not worth the aggravation.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Some of that less polluting, old-style, small farm efficiency we've been hearing about: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/science/earth/09amish.html

[bcbm]

Some of that less polluting, old-style, small farm efficiency we've been hearing about: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/science/earth/09amish.html

because authoritarian, faith based "communal" farming would bear a strong resemblance to a communist farming project.

[Robocommie]

because authoritarian, faith based "communal" farming would bear a strong resemblance to a communist farming project.

Not to mention we'd be of course using plow teams and horses. Maybe even oxen, for the fuck of it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You said archaic small farming techniques were preferable to modern agriculture because the latter causes pollution. In fact the old style causes plenty of pollution... not just when Amish farmers use it. The amount of runoff in any stream that flows through a small farm will show that. Or you could read the article.

[Robocommie]

You said archaic small farming techniques were preferable to modern agriculture because the latter causes pollution. In fact the old style causes plenty of pollution... not just when Amish farmers use it. The amount of runoff in any stream that flows through a small farm will show that. Or you could read the article.

I read the article, and it does quite a bit to imply that part of the problem is the Amish reluctance to work with the government and EPA regulations, and most of their problems relate to manure management. And I never used the word archaic. The point I was trying to get at is that the current system of agriculture, under capitalism, uses a lot of environmentally abusive practices. Small farming under capitalism isn't really exempt from this, obviously, but it does avoid the problems associated with factory farming, like mad cow disease, and anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria. And if you think the Amish have a problem with manure run-off, well then you should read about the rivers of animal waste that are produced by these massive livestock producers.

I am not opposed to industrialized agriculture and husbandry, I am merely in favor of sustainable agriculture and land reform.

[Vanguard1917]

Some of that less polluting, old-style, small farm efficiency we've been hearing about: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/science/earth/09amish.html

The "sustainable, low-carbon" farming celebrated by many environmentalists:

http://www.andrewaitchison.com/pm/images/lores/myrepository/Organic%20Farming,%20Uganda/01_07_uganda_5053.jpg


As the man interviewed in the first part of the Worldwrite video below explains, life is so harsh in rural poverty that even shanty towns compare favourably. The lack of modern agricultural technology means that African small-scale farmers can look forward to daily backbreaking toil in order to merely meet their survival needs. And, as the video shows, while Western middle-class eco-activists are busy lecturing people in the third-world that they should not aspire to 'first-world' living standards, Africans desperately want modernity and development.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywRw_ORj-Q&feature=channel

[Salyut]

My parents farm between two Hutterite colonies - kinda like the Amish except they embrace technology, the colony with the dairy has a extensive robotic milking system. They do very well; aside from being very patriarchal and uh, religious. So thats an example of a working collective farm if anyone wants one.

Still: I agree with both sides. Industrialization has been good. The problem is that the family farm has been in serious decline since the late 1970's and there really isn't anything that can be done to stop it. The domination of agribusiness is inevitable at this point. Discussion of what class farmers fall into is kinda meaningless at this point.