Peasants

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I've never understood why Marxists (or is it just Leninists?) make a distinction between peasants and all other workers. So what makes them different from other workers and why is the distinction important?

[Gustav HK]

Peasants sell their products, not their labour power.
They own means of production, although it can de jure be leasing from a landlord, but the products, that the peasant produces, is his, and the landlord often claims a rent, in form of payment or labour on the landlord´s own land (last one was widespread in feudal times, don´t know about now).

Peasants aren´t objectively as a class interested in socialism, therefore this distinction is important.

[tir1944]

There's different tipes of peasants.
First there's the kulak,a rich peasant who exploits others,then there's the "middle peasant" who can be won over and then there's the poor peasant whose class position is semi-proletarian or proletarian.
IMO at least,don't know if this "classification" is correct.

[Искра]

Peasants sell their products, not their labour power.
This is not true.

As, Tir1944 pointed out there are different types of peasants. So, as I live in 21st century I won’t use “kulak” rhetoric, but I’ll try to explain differences on present day situation. Also, I’d like to point that few people in my family are peasants.

So, you have small peasants who do not employ other workforce, but they run their family farm. Eastern Europe is full of those people. They sell their products for cheep to corporations and concerns. Also, there are “bigger” peasants, who employ workforce and who own more land. You could call them landlords. Their employees are “proletarian-peasants”. Those people work on land but for a wage and they usually do not own land even sometimes small peasants work on their own farms but also for landlord. Most of the peasants in EE are these, so that's why Gustav HK's definition is wrong.

Left does not trust peasants because they are always trying to protect their land, because they live of it, and they are now willing to engage revolutionary struggle.

[Arlekino]

Very truth we can't trust all peasants, even in my times in Soviet Union peasants was hiding behind the veils as kulaks I would not afraid to use this world. In my time I did my life of plenty time in countryside with my grandparents and other relatives. My Grandparents used to sell in market own grows vegetables seems is nothing wrong but money grabbing as much as they could profits used giving to church, dragging me to church, of fuck how I hated in those times and always used going on me you are "Komsomolka" they did hard job to readucate me lol.

[Cencus]

Essentially because peasantry was the working class of the previous economic system namely fuedalism. With the rise of capitalism & the industrial revolution peasants became fewer in number and much reduced in power. Indeed there are so few in the more industrialised nations as to be non existant.

The idea that you can trust peasants any less than the proletariat to me seems rediculous, is the Kulak any different from the lower/middle manager in their support for the system that grants them their little bit of power?

[Gustav HK]

If they only (or almost only) sell their labour power, then they are rural proletarians.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As, Tir1944 pointed out there are different types of peasants. So, as I live in 21st century I won’t use “kulak” rhetoric, but I’ll try to explain differences on present day situation. Also, I’d like to point that few people in my family are peasants.

So, you have small peasants who do not employ other workforce, but they run their family farm. Eastern Europe is full of those people. They sell their products for cheep to corporations and concerns. Also, there are “bigger” peasants, who employ workforce and who own more land. You could call them landlords. Their employees are “proletarian-peasants”. Those people work on land but for a wage and they usually do not own land even sometimes small peasants work on their own farms but also for landlord. Most of the peasants in EE are these, so that's why Gustav HK's definition is wrong.

Left does not trust peasants because they are always trying to protect their land, because they live of it, and they are now willing to engage revolutionary struggle.

There are four distinct groups today.

Most if not all of today's "bigger peasants" are corporate farmers. The proletarian elements in today's agriculture are called farm workers.

Those in between tend to be either small proprietary farmers or smallholders on the one hand or either small tenant farmers or sharecroppers on the other. Make no mistake: even the poorer bunch that are the latter are still petit-bourgeois, reactionary in the First World yet very much capable of being socially radical and politically revolutionary (the latter many times moreso than the proletariat) in the Third World.

Today's India is ripe for revolution led by left-nationalists among the peasantry and urban petit-bourgeoisie.

[Geiseric]

Working peasents, i.e. immigrants who harvest rice or do backbreaking labor on farms they in no way own are proletarians. They are very capible of being revolutionary, however they have more risks to take than most people since they are so replaceable. farming is mechanised in much of the U.S. and alot of work is seasonal as well, so organising migrant workers could be very difficult.

[RED DAVE]

There are four distinct groups today.

Most if not all of today's "bigger peasants" are corporate farmers. The proletarian elements in today's agriculture are called farm workers.

Those in between tend to be small proprietary farmers on the one hand or either small tenant farmers or sharecroppers on the other. Make no mistake: even the poorer bunch that are the latter are still petit-bourgeois, reactionary in the First WorldOkay up to here.


yet very much capable of being socially radical and politically revolutionary (the latter many times moreso than the proletariat) in the Third World.However, and the is the big however of the so-called Third World, the essential demand of even the poorest peasants, as opposed to farm workers, is for possession of the land in the capitalist sense. It is not for socialism.

This is the classic mistake that Maoists and Stalinists make. The working class must be the leading class of the revolution precisely because only the working class is engaged, for its freedom as a class, in the struggle for socialism. While other classes may join in the revolution, in the end, there is a contradiction in their revolutionary behavior.

The so-called "national bourgeoisie" wants the revolution to liberate "national capitalism"; the peasantry wants the revolution to bring about agrarian reform; most of the petty-bourgeoisie wants, above all, not to become proletarianized. Only the working class has the clear goal, when it becomes fully conscious of itself and it role in history, of socialism.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, and the is the big however of the so-called Third World, the essential demand of even the poorest peasants, as opposed to farm workers, is for possession of the land in the capitalist sense. It is not for socialism [...] the peasantry wants the revolution to bring about agrarian reform; most of the petty-bourgeoisie wants, above all, not to become proletarianized.

Of course peasants don't want to become farm workers. That wasn't my point (and in fact I made this point against graymouser, Inform, or S. Artesian in a debate on Banaji's hack-work).

In these instances, state-based lease arrangements can be socially radical (as opposed to socially revolutionary). The state should own the land so that Land Value Taxation can be extracted from the peasantry, and so that land redistributions can occur every so often in some sort of peasant egalitarianism. The state should also consider having a direct monopoly on certain big-scale farming equipment, like tractors (Machine Tractor Stations), or an indirect monopoly through Agricultural Machinery Associations (Selkhoztekhnika).

[RED DAVE]

However, and the is the big however of the so-called Third World, the essential demand of even the poorest peasants, as opposed to farm workers, is for possession of the land in the capitalist sense. It is not for socialism [...] the peasantry wants the revolution to bring about agrarian reform; most of the petty-bourgeoisie wants, above all, not to become proletarianized.
Of course peasants don't want to become farm workers. That wasn't my point (and in fact I made this point against greymouser, Inform, or S. Artesian in a debate on Banaji's hack-work).My mind boggles at your obtuseness. I wasn't saying that was your point. As usual, you focus in on some quibble to avoid the main discussion.


In these instancesWhat fucking instances? What are you talking about. It is impossible from your writing to determine your context. I assume it is a some kind of a post-revolutionary situation where, as usual for you, some kind of state bureaucracy is running the show.


state-based lease arrangementsYup. Here's the bureaucracy.


can be socially radical (as opposed to socially revolutionary).And what, pray tell, the fuck does that mean?


The stateAh yes, the Holy State.


should own the land so that Land Value Taxation can be extracted from the peasantry, and so that land redistributions can occur every so often in some sort of peasant egalitarianism.I need a Tylenol.

How did the notions of land ownership, taxation, "extraction" hang on under socialism? Your socialism sounds like capitalism to me, with, of course, a nice layer of bureaucracy.


The state should also consider having a monopoly on certain big-scale farming equipment, like tractors (Machine Tractor Stations).Two Tylenols.

RED DAVE

[Rooster]

As has been said, a peasant is different from a prole because a peasant owns their means of production and can create their own subsistence. Whereas a prole has to sell their labour power for a wage to be able to purchase their subsistence.

The separation of peasants into different types is stupid. It's not a real class analysis, as they all mostly have the same relation to their means of production. There's a different between a day labourer (farm hand who's employed) and a peasant for example. It is also filled with contradictions. Kulaks are bad because they are rich peasants. Middle peasants can be won over by the goal of a middle peasant is to be a rich peasant. How do you win over a middle peasant? Make them into a kulak! Why separate peasants into different types based on their wealth but not separate the petite-bourgeois or bourgeois based on their wealth and not their relation to production?

[tir1944]

As has been said, a peasant is different from a prole because a peasant owns their means of production
Except for when he/she is not a rich peasant/kulak in the case of which he/she doesn't own the means of production.



Whereas a prole has to sell their labour power for a wage to be able to purchase their subsistence.
A rural proletarian can also grow his own food on small plots,but that most likely won't stop him and his family from starving if he doesn't go to work.The same's with the rural proletariat or the poor peasants.


The separation of peasants into different types is stupid.
No,why? Have you read Lenin and his writing on the agrarian question?


It's not a real class analysis
Really? Says who?


as they all mostly have the same relation to their means of production.
No,the poor peasant doesn't own (much) land and machinery.



There's a different between a day labourer (farm hand who's employed) and a peasant for example.
This is just playing with semantics.


Kulaks are bad because they are rich peasants.
No,they're "bad" because they're the "expositure" of capitalist exploitation in the countryside.


iddle peasants can be won over by the goal of a middle peasant is to be a rich peasant. How do you win over a middle peasant?
The middle peasant has historically been won over to the side of Revolution.

[Nox]

Peasants are the feudal version of the Proletariat.

They may not be exploited in the same way as the Proletariat are exploited under Capitalism, but they are still exploited.

[Gustav HK]

Middle peasants still own means of production (although the ownership can de jure be leasing from a landlord). Ownership of means of production doesn´t mean that one exploit others labour power.

Peasants/famers are of course different, with poor peasants being allies to the proletariat, middle peasants can sometimes be won over or at least be non-antagonistic to the DoP and socialism, and the kulaks are class enemies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How did the notions of land ownership, taxation, "extraction" hang on under socialism? Your socialism sounds like capitalism to me, with, of course, a nice layer of bureaucracy.

Two Tylenols.

Add a third, since I was referring specifically to a political platform for Third World conditions (specifically, for proletarian demographic minorities).

[ComradeOm]

I've never understood why Marxists (or is it just Leninists?) make a distinction between peasants and all other workers. So what makes them different from other workers and why is the distinction important?The short answer is that peasants and workers just aren't the same thing. Think apples and oranges. The slightly longer answer is that a peasant's role in the relations of production is fundamentally different from that of a worker. Essentially the latter relies on his/her labour and is driven (through conflict with the capitalist) to seize control of the means of production. This is facilitated by the largely urban character of the proletariat. This difference with the peasant/landlord relationship is land

At this point it's worth briefly defining the peasant. Someone who sells their labour in a rural setting but does not own their own land is not strictly a peasant. They are agricultural workers who can be considered a rural proletariat, even if they might belong to the peasant milieu. The line can be blurred when a someone owns a small plot but also sells their labour... so we'll ignore that for now and simply mention that peasants, in the conventional sense, own land

And that's the complicating factor. Traditionally the peasantry's struggle has revolved around the land question. The problem is that peasant ownership of land is, unlike a socialist factory, not necessarily collective. It is perfectly possible for peasants to do away with the landlords (temporarily at least) and still maintain a hierarchical and repressive society. From which a new generation of landlords will inevitably emerge. That's because individual ownership of land is fundamentally a bourgeois (whether petit or grand) characteristic

And yes, it is a distinction made by all Marxists. This was a far more relevant topic in Marx's day when the peasantry was actively becoming obsolete


No,why? Have you read Lenin and his writing on the agrarian question?Lenin was wrong on that one. The abandonment of the policy of the Committees of Poor Peasants by 1919 was a retreat from his analysis. The latter might have held true prior to 1917 (although I don't believe that distinctions within the village were ever as sharp as Lenin maintained) but the 'black repartition' of 1917 had significantly eased any class divisions within the commune


No,they're "bad" because they're the "expositure" of capitalist exploitation in the countryside.Actually in the early USSR (ie, pre-collectivisation) the largest users/exploiters of hired labour were the 'middle peasants' (seredniaki)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Peasants from communities which traditionally view land as the commons and divvy it up communally, especially those who were then often forced to lose that in exchange for serfdom (ie, Latin American haciendas etc) have always been open to varying forms of Communism or Socialism. Indigenous communities which still operate along the lines of "primitive" Communism are among those who are most open. We see this today in places like Mexico.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is perfectly possible for peasants to do away with the landlords (temporarily at least) and still maintain a hierarchical and repressive society. From which a new generation of landlords will inevitably emerge. That's because individual ownership of land is fundamentally a bourgeois (whether petit or grand) characteristic

Peasant patrimonialism shouldn't be dismissed as downright reactionary. You also forget relations among the family heads that can lead to general land redistributions and peasant egalitarianism.

[agnixie]

Peasants from communities which traditionally view land as the commons and divvy it up communally, especially those who were then often forced to lose that in exchange for serfdom (ie, Latin American haciendas etc) have always been open to varying forms of Communism or Socialism. Indigenous communities which still operate along the lines of "primitive" Communism are among those who are most open. We see this today in places like Mexico.

There were no native peoples in Mexico who still lived under proto-communist societies a thousand years ago already at the latest, maybe excluding the intermediate areas the aztecs called the chichimecs.

[Ocean Seal]

I don't understand why there is so much contempt for the peasantry. Their demands often seem reformist in nature, but so do those of the proletariat. Rarely do you see the proletariat shouting out revolutionary socialism all together, even in times of the revolution, but rather they say end corruption, jobs plan, and all of that. Yes, sometimes mass parties are built and the proletariat understands its revolutionary class interest but peasant liberation in my opinion is an important victory for proletarian liberation.

The peasantry's extreme exploitation is what leads much of the power of the capitalist class. I think that we concern ourselves with definitions too much instead of what is the obvious, and that is that the peasantry has it bad, really bad. And objectively, I think that's enough to make them rise up (perhaps not for socialism, but against the interests of capitalism, which would indirectly lead to socialism).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There were no native peoples in Mexico who still lived under proto-communist societies a thousand years ago already at the latest, maybe excluding the intermediate areas the aztecs called the chichimecs.

Do "primitive communist" societies include local subsistence farming villages with communal property rights? If so that would cover many ethnic groups from the South of Mexico, especially after the Spanish destroyed the local nobility. The Aztecs obviously operated with vast amounts of surplus labor, but I don't think that extended over the whole geographical area of Mexico.

[ComradeOm]

I don't understand why there is so much contempt for the peasantry. Their demands often seem reformist in nature, but so do those of the proletariatExcept that the peasantry's cannot help being "reformist in nature". The blunt truth is that even a 'revolutionary' peasantry does not call for the establishment of a socialist society; ie, the abolition of private property

Now nobody is saying that we should laugh at the peasantry's exploitation or that they cannot be tactical allies in some imaginary revolutionary scenario but their interests and the interests of the proletariat are simply not the same


Do "primitive communist" societies include local subsistence farming villages with communal property rights?No. They're an interesting case but not an example of 'primitive communism'. See Marx's comments on the Russian mir

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No. They're an interesting case but not an example of 'primitive communism'. See Marx's comments on the Russian mir

I see ... I suppose I had an overly broad definition of "primitive communism" which includes communal subsistence farming. Either way, EZLN communities show that indigenous cultures with a notion of communal property rights can be revolutionary. Whether their revolutionary ideology has any relevance to the urban population or has the ability to overthrow the state is a legitimate question, but their battle to protect local communal property rights is an interesting case of class struggle.

[Smyg]

The contempt against the peasants is interesting, given that the vast majority - at least where I come from - where essentially indentured servants, not free landowners.