Dissolution of the agrarian petit-bourgeois - Alternative for Third World revolution?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

NOTE: When I say "Semi-Utopian" while describing the pasture owner's self-destruction, I do not use it in the sense that such an occurence would have no strategic formula to get there, but rather in the sense of being a purely ideological current that spreads class self-hatred among the petit-bourgeois of third world nations (which I personally believe to be far closer socially and economically to other proletarians than bourgeois due to their need for self supply).

I was going to post this in learning, but decided that I wanted the opinions of some restricted members as well on this issue. Onto the question.

During an international revolution, is it possible for the national majority of the petit-bourgeoisie to be either co-operatively or forcibly dissolved by the international proletarian majority? E.g. peasants being enticed into giving up ownership of their land by the now inherently larger, nationless proletarian movement, and joining them in revolution as unemployed/proletarians themselves? Having a strong anti-nationalist outlook on things, I have been favouring this idea for quite a while now. Surely the impoverished petit-bourgeois of the semi-industrial world would gain from proletarianisation? Surely the attachment to their property is no more fiscal an idealism than an employee's attachment to the market and other ?

Surely the notion that this kind of action could be described as 'cultural imperialism' must be deemed absurd, considering that such dissolution would be the work of a worldwide, nationless proletarian movement, which ignores the bourgeois borders set to keep itself divided and flows where capitalism's sectarian politic can not?

Again proporting the idea that working-class currents can be beneficial to the majority of the third-world's petit-bourgeoisie, could it also be possible, in another sense, for an ideological current to spread throughout the petit-bourgeoisie of developing countries in support of class-betrayal and agrarian socialism, ala the rural tiny-cappies destroying themselves as a class and alleviating their property to the entire community? After all, if I'm not mistaken, many of the peasants to be found in developing countries could actually benefit from the improved living conditions and organised distribution of products that can be found within the socialist current, so I wouldn't necessarily even name this as a betrayal of class interest!

So two ideas; one a form of anti-nationalist "proletarianisation", the other a semi-utopian and sensationalist (yet strategically possible!) movement, with ideological/theoretical roots found in the diggers of the early english commonwealth. Can they carry weight? Have they been tried before? Should these currents be supported or violently opposed?


I await your feedback!

p.s. Am very tired. Will edit this in the morning so that it doesn't sound so damn jumpy!

[campesino]

If you give impoverished peasants work and infrastructure, they will work the land. If you bring in tractors and farm machinery and effective land management systems, they will work the land, they can then see the fruits of socialism in the building of infrastructure. The point that needs to be stressed is that they are poor and desire progress. In the USA collectivization, will most like be done by giving the mass unemployed and disgruntled farm workers, the farms and equipment and the responsibility to produce food.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

If you give impoverished peasants work and infrastructure, they will work the land. If you bring in tractors and farm machinery and effective land management systems, they will work the land, they can then see the fruits of socialism in the building of infrastructure. The point that needs to be stressed is that they are poor and desire progress. In the USA collectivization, will most like be done by giving the mass unemployed and disgruntled farm workers, the farms and equipment and the responsibility to produce food.

I'm tired so I may not completely understand, but if this is you in disagreement with what I've said, then I have to concur that what I had explained in the opening post doesn't necessarily run contrary to any of this.

[campesino]

no I don't disagree. I agree absolutely agree with you, a petit bourgeois farmer in the third world has not been a successful capitalist unlike the petit bourgeois farmers of the first world. I was just saying how a different approach to agriculture will take place in the first world.

[ind_com]

The average third-world farmer is no more petit bourgeois than an urban 'self-employed' individual who is deprived of labour-rights by the disguise of self-employment, remaining under full economic control of his big company 'customers', who are really his bosses. Apart from the fact that an international proletarian revolution is not possible without the victory and consolidation of revolutions in some neo-colonies first, an international proletarian majority is not even necessary to completely proletarianize these elements; a national minority of the industrial proletariat is sufficient.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

no I don't disagree. I agree absolutely agree with you, a petit bourgeois farmer in the third world has not been a successful capitalist unlike the petit bourgeois farmers of the first world. I was just saying how a different approach to agriculture will take place in the first world.

Ah, I see. And yes, that was the message I was trying to get across; that the supposedly 'petit-bourgeois' class of the third world not only benefits greatly from giving up property and collectivising production, but also gains the opportunity to work with and contribute to the proletarian cause without an inherently bourgeois input. This 'majoritarian social-agrarianism' could then become the front or vanguard of a now united revolutionary movement within the third world due to the extinction of tiny/self capitalism as a part of the working-class.

I'd still like to see some responses on the two ideas specifically, though.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The average third-world farmer is no more petit bourgeois than an urban 'self-employed' individual who is deprived of labour-rights by the disguise of self-employment, remaining under full economic control of his big company 'customers', who are really his bosses
Apart from the fact that an international proletarian revolution is not possible without the victory and consolidation of revolutions in some neo-colonies first, an international proletarian majority is not even necessary to completely proletarianize these elements; a national minority of the industrial proletariat is sufficient.

I agree completely with you about the peasants in said countries. However, I still see a need for the peasantry to abolish itself (or for the proletariat to abolish it) due to the problems with real estate and private property. What I'm trying to get at is that the petit-bourgeois on the 'exploited' or 'impoverished' side of the spectrum can actually abolish themselves through organisation and leviating their land to the rest of the "abolished" community, effectively becoming a classless (classless?) revolutionary front that will not only have the same goals as but lead and instigate the proletarian minority into it's folds (not the other way around).

I am so tired. I hope I'm making sense :p