Farmers/peasants in the revolution

[Kosakk]

I was wondering, did Marx ever say anything about farmers? Or peasants?

I know Mao considered them important to the revolution, if he did, but how?
(Not that I agree with him, just curious about his views in this matter)

One might also say that there's no peasants in Europe any longer?

[Book O'Dead]

I was wondering, did Marx ever say anything about farmers? Or peasants?

Read Marx to learn the answer.


I know Mao considered them important to the revolution, if he did, but how?
(Not that I agree with him, just curious about his views in this matter)

Again, if you want to find out read the relevant material.


One might also say that there's no peasants in Europe any longer?
One might say that, yes.

[Ostrinski]

if you want to find out read the relevant material.This is the learning forum, asshole.


I was wondering, did Marx ever say anything about farmers? Or peasants?
He maintained that the peasantry was an oppressed class under a capitalist framework, but that they weren't capable of replacing the capitalist mode of production with a socialist one because of their material alienation. He argued that the proletariat is the only class capable of initiating socialism because they are at the epicenter of industrial development. Their interactions with the material conditions under these circumstances (division of labor, centralization of the instruments of production) have equipped them the dexterity and versatility necessary for seizing and maintaining class power, and also of maintaining a socialist program.


I know Mao considered them important to the revolution, if he did, but how?China was so underdeveloped that Mao had to shift and revise Marxist theory in accordance with the material circumstances. Mao had very poor understanding of economics, however, and his models of mass scale agricultural collectivization and agrarian-centric socialist program were miserable failures.

[Kosakk]

Read Marx to learn the answer.



Again, if you want to find out read the relevant material.


One might say that, yes.


Thank you, that really answered my questions … :p

I've read the manifesto, but that doesn't make me right. I'm just looking for other opinions on the matter.
To widen my horizon …

I personally don't believe them to be a part of the working class, but the story's different in Europe.
So I'm also wondering how this applies in other countries. Where you might say that farmers belongs to the working class (?)

[thriller]

China was so underdeveloped that Mao had to shift and revise Marxist theory in accordance with the material circumstances. Mao had very poor understanding of economics, however, and his models of mass scale agricultural collectivization and agrarian-centric socialist program were miserable failures.

One could argue that Lenin was faced with the same problem, in the sense that at least 70% of the population was peasantry, and that the very new working class was unable to promote socialism on their own. As for contemporary discussions on the subject, check out the messages between Sid Barrett and I.

[commieathighnoon]

Peasants are a very mixed group, and as a category may have all kinds of social and historical baggage that may not be desirable. Peasant can have differing relations to the means of production: in some places and times the peasantry may be socially reduced to near slavery in social terms, but still have a sector of household production. In others, free laborers may be tied to a farm by sharecropping or rent masks, but basically there to provide labor for compensation for a landlord. In yet other regimes, peasants are mutually grouped in cooperative or communalistic living and cultivating regimes. One really has to be specific about the farming groups in question.

[Ostrinski]

One could argue that Lenin was faced with the same problem, in the sense that at least 70% of the population was peasantry, and that the very new working class was unable to promote socialism on their own.Except that Russia had a far larger working class in 1917 than China had up until revolution and that the Russian working class was class conscious. Agricultural collectivization was never implemented in the Soviet Union until the late 20's, the farms were nationalized.

[commieathighnoon]

I don't think one can present Mao's turn to the right and revisionism, including opportunism on the peasant and revolutionary agent question, as a matter merely of material circumstances--namely, the underdevelopment of China. Mao was on the right of the CCP before Shanghai's workers were crushed by Chiang in 1927. The organized, urban proletariat did exist in pre-1949 China, and certainly before the onsent of the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Where they are similar is for a number of reasons, in both cases the existing communist parties disabled themselves from representing the proletariat in its struggle to overcome value, and became reliant on balancing between petty proprietors, civil servants, and intelligentsia, in an autarchic substitute for the completion of the bourgeois revolution.

[Book O'Dead]

This is the learning forum, asshole.

He maintained that the peasantry was an oppressed class under a capitalist framework, (blah-blah)

Question: Why is it that some people are too stupid to know that there is no Royal Road to Science?

Answer: Because there are always those around who never miss an opportunity to exhibit their little knowledge.

[Kosakk]

Question: Why is it that some people are too stupid to know that there is no Royal Road to Science?

Answer: Because there are always those around who never miss an opportunity to exhibit their little knowledge.

Well, Brospierre at least responded to my question. In a civil and informative way. Actually answering my questions about Marx and Mao.
But none of the answers in this thread is absolute. That's why I put this in the Learning section.
To see the different views, learn history and theory. And make my own opinion from what I've gathered.

Maybe I should rephrase:
HOW IS THE FARMERS/PEASANTRY VIEWED IN A REVOLUTIONARY CONTEXT?
PART OF THE WORKING CLASS OR NOT? (WHY/WHY NOT?)

I did not include my own view in the OP, because in this thread, it's irrelevant.
I'm just curious how other comrades view farmers/peasants.

And nice quote. Funny how ironic it is....

Back on topic: How was it for the farmers/peasants in Republican Spain during the civil war? Or was it pretty much like the situation in Russia/China?

[thriller]

Except that Russia had a far larger working class in 1917 than China had up until revolution and that the Russian working class was class conscious. Agricultural collectivization was never implemented in the Soviet Union until the late 20's, the farms were nationalized.

True, was larger and more class conscious. Guess that's why I wonder why people still believe in vanguardism if the workers were class conscious to begin with :P

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx had a changing view of the peasantry. In his younger years, he dismissed their strictly political potential. In his later years, as he turned to Russian affairs, he reconsidered this.

[Firebrand]

How was it for the farmers/peasants in Republican Spain during the civil war? Or was it pretty much like the situation in Russia/China?

Very dependent on which part of spain you are talking about. In the south what you have is mostly massive estates owned by powerful landowners and worked by landless labourers for a wage. Wheras in the north it was primarily small landowners who farmed their own land at subsistance level.

[Bostana]

Marx did support Farmers and peasants realizing they're part of the struggle against Imperialism too.

[Ostrinski]

Marx did support Farmers and peasants realizing they're part of the struggle against Imperialism too.Imperialism was in its infancy during Marx's time, and yes he did recognize the exploitation of the peasants, but he also recognized that they weren't dexterous or versatile enough to manage themselves (much unlike the proletariat).

[Bostana]

Imperialism was in its infancy during Marx's time, and yes he did recognize the exploitation of the peasants, but he also recognized that they weren't dexterous or versatile enough to manage themselves (much unlike the proletariat).

Peasants maybe but Farmers no. He knew Farmers can manage themselves. Marx did have a rough opinion on peasants in his younger years but after years more of study he had an opinion change.

[Ostrinski]

Peasants maybe but Farmers no. He knew Farmers can manage themselves. Marx did have a rough opinion on peasants in his younger years but after years more of study he had an opinion change.Source this.

[Bostana]

Source this.


Marx on Social Class
http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s28f99.htm

[Ostrinski]

Marx on Social Class
http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s28f99.htmI suppose this is what you're referring to:


f. Peasantry and Farmers. Marx considered the peasantry to be disorganized, dispersed, and incapable of carrying out change. Marx also expected that this class would tend to disappear, with most becoming displaced from the land and joining the proletariat. The more successful might become landowners or capitalist farmers. With respect to family farmers as a group, much the same could be said. However, Marx was not really very familiar with these as a group, and had little to say about these. The various analyses of the role of farmers in the Prairies constitute a more adequate view of what may be expected from this group. They could be considered to form a class when they act together as a group. In the early days of Prairie settlement, farms were of similar size, farmers had generally similar interests, and the farm population acted together to create the cooperative movement and the Wheat Board. More recently, Prairie farmers are often considered to be split into different groups or strata, dependent on type of farming, size of farm, and whether or not they employ labour. Farmers have not been able to act together as a class in political and economic actions in recent years. Lobbying by some farm groups have been successful, but these do not usually represent farmers as a whole.I'm not familiar with Marx's analysis on these prairie settlements. I am, however, familiar with his distrust in the peasantry and his logical reasons for it. This is a secondary source, please show me where Marx talked about cooperative prairie settlements in his works.

[Bostana]

I suppose this is what you're referring to:

I'm not familiar with Marx's analysis on these prairie settlements. I am, however, familiar with his distrust in the peasantry and his logical reasons for it. This is a secondary source, please show me where Marx talked about cooperative prairie settlements in his works.

Are we talking about Farmers or peasants?

I am sure Marx was referring to those Peasants who refuse to search for a job and so on.

[Ostrinski]

Are we talking about Farmers or peasants?All non proletarians.

[Bostana]

All non proletarians.

Marx had a positive view on every hard Worker. A person who Works for his community and to help others is always a help to himself and to the Community.

[Ostrinski]

Marx had a positive view on every hard Worker. A person who Works for his community and to help others is always a help to himself and to the Community.This is idealist nonsense. Marx wasn't concerned with these questions of enhancing the human experience, he was concerned with the nature of how history develops. It would do well to read Marx and Engels first.

[Bostana]

This is idealist nonsense. Marx wasn't concerned with these questions of enhancing the human experience, he was concerned with the nature of how history develops. It would do well to read Marx and Engels first.

Yes, so in order to develop History correctly and steer Communism in the right direction he had to support the Worker and the word Worker can cover a lot of ground.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The distinction ought to be between landowners and non-landowning rural workers. The latter has interests in common with the urban working class, but the former, not so much.

[Ostrinski]

Yes, so in order to develop History correctly and steer Communism in the right direction he had to support the WorkerPeople don't develop history on their own accord just as we don't just develop communism on our own accord. We let our interests guide us, and the ideas of communism are merely a reflection of the interests of the working class. Read Marx, you will shed your idealist understanding of things.


and the word Worker can cover a lot of ground.Not in the Marxian sense. The workers are the wage laborers that rent their labor to the bourgeoisie and engage in productive labor on the industrial means of production. This excludes peasants, farmers, merchants, small capitalists and so on. It is the workers' interaction with the productive environment of industry that equips them with the means of self-rule. The proletariat is unique in this characterization.

[Bostana]

Not in the Marxian sense. The workers are the wage laborers that rent their labor to the bourgeoisie and engage in productive labor on the industrial means of production. This excludes peasants, farmers, merchants, small capitalists and so on. It is the workers' interaction with the productive environment of industry that equips them with the means of self-rule. The proletariat is unique in this characterization.

Marx on describing the Proletariat:
Proletariat. The proletariat are owners of labour power (the ability to work), and mere owners of labour power, with no other resources than the ability to work with their hands, bodies, and minds. Since these workers have no property, in order to survive and obtain an income for themselves and their families, they must find employment work for an employer. This means working for a capitalist-employer in an exploitative social relationship.

This exploitative work relationship recreates or reproduces itself continually. If the capitalist-employer is to make profits and accumulate capital, wages must be kept low. This means that the proletariat is exploited, with the surplus time (above that required for creating subsistence) worked by the worker creating surplus products. While the worker produces, the products created by this labour are taken by the capitalist and sold – thus producing surplus value or profit for the capitalist but poverty for workers. This occurs each day of labour process, preventing workers from gaining ownership of property and recreating the conditions for further exploitation.

The antagonistic and contradictory nature of this system is evident as capitalists attempting to reduce wages and make workers work more intensively, while workers have exactly the opposite set of interests. Work and the labour process in the capitalist mode of production are organized so that workers remain propertyless members of the proletariat. The surplus products and value created by workers turns into capital, which is accumulated.

Historically, the proletariat emerged as the aristocracy began to suffer financial difficulties in the later middle ages. Many of those who were supported by working for the aristocracy lost their livelihood – the "disbanding of the feudal retainers and the dissolution of the monasteries." Using enclosures, changing the conditions of production in agriculture, and denying peasants access to common lands and resources, landowners transformed land into pasture land for raising sheep, or sold land to farmers who began to develop grain and livestock production. People who had subsisted on the land were denied the possibility of making a living on the land, and they become propertyless. Population growth was also considerable, and in some areas forced labour (slavery, indentured servants, poor, prison) was used. While some people subsisted in rural industry and craft production, factory production began to undermine these as well in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Together these changes created a large class of landless and propertyless people who had no choice but to become members of the proletariat – many working in factories. These people became free wage labourers, free from feudal ties and free from a source of livelihood. Today we still talk of free labour markets and the dual meaning is much the same.

While the relationship between workers and capitalists, or between labour and capital may appear to be no more than an economic relationship of equals meeting equals in the labour market, Marx shows how it is an exploitative social relationship. Not only is it exploitative, it is contradictory, with the interests of the two partners in the relationship being directly opposed to each other. Although at the same time, the two opposed interests are also partners in the sense that both capital and labour are required in production and an exploitative relationship means an exploiter and someone being exploited.

This relationship is further contradictory in that it is not just two sets of interests, but there is no resolution of the capital-labour contradiction within the organization of capitalism as a system. The contradictory relationship has class conflict built into it, and leads to periodic bursts of strikes, crises, political struggles, and ultimately to the overthrow of bourgeois rule by the proletariat. Class conflict of this sort results in historical change and is the motive force in the history of capitalism.

[Bostana]

The distinction ought to be between landowners and non-landowning rural workers. The latter has interests in common with the urban working class, but the former, not so much.

The proletariat are owners of labour power (the ability to work), and mere owners of labour power, with no other resources than the ability to work with their hands, bodies, and minds.

[Bostana]

An here is what Lenin says about Farmers:
"By replacing the surplus tax in kind, the farmers have to stay now, with an average yield of hundreds of millions of pounds of grain surpluses. These surplus farmers are legally entitled to use freely in their own desire to improve their nutrition, animal feed and in exchange for manufactured goods. The free exchange of surplus grain for industrial products will increase the interest of the peasants to improve their farming, strengthen the case if this improvement through the development of all sorts of industries, giving farmers needed for food.

It would just be better if able to fully recover as quickly as possible big factories, as well as rail and water transportation. Then we could be delivered quickly and cheaply farmers need a lot of products of industry and felts, and kerosene, and textiles, and footwear, and agricultural tools and fertilizers. But for the quick recovery of large-scale industry needs large amounts of fuel and food in the cities, as well as many of these stocks to collect and bring back, we can not. Therefore it is necessary, along with the work of collecting and bringing up such stocks, to begin work immediately and full promotion of small industries. It can and must give the farmer an immediate improvement in his life and its economy without large government stocks of raw materials, fuel and food.

Let all Party and Soviet workers thoroughly understand and diligently perform their duties fully with the promotion and development of small-scale industry, helpful to the farm."

[Bostana]

Peasants are the working, exploited class of feudalism. They differ from slaves in that they get to "have" their own land to work on and grow produce on but the land is actually owned by the landlord and the peasants have to pay him taxes with their actual produce. They get to keep whatever is left for them in theory, but often times the lords and their guards use the ignorance of the peasants to trick them into giving them all of their crops because they owe fees for more and more things until they are stuck into an ever mounting debt that they will never escape in their lifetime, making them virtually slave-like.