Third World demographics: Are small tenant farmers and sharecroppers farm workers?

[Die Neue Zeit]

There has been an unfortunately emotional exchange in recent weeks concerning Third World demographics and strategy.

A few years ago, I read some literature by left academics that suggest there has been a shift in Third World class demographics. They have suggested that rural proletarians are now commonplace.

Upon further scrutiny, however, I also found that they've got things wrong on the status of small tenant farmers and sharecroppers, not to mention urban elements who are under modern debt peonage just to operate things like shops. According to these authors, they're all now part of the working class, just because the peasantry doesn't exist in the Third World anymore.

The question that begs is: Really?

[Q]

The third world very much remains an open questions for at least the next few decades. The proletariat fights (or rather, should fight) for absolute democracy, through the democratic republic, as it effectively puts them into power as they are the vast majority in any of the core capitalist countries. The problem is that this is not the case in the third world.

However, with the speed of developments right now, we might ask ourselves how much of an issue this still is? The World Health Organisation pout it like this (http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/):


Urbanization, the demographic transition from rural to urban, is associated with shifts from an agriculture-based economy to mass industry, technology, and service. For the first time ever, the majority of the world's population lives in a city, and this proportion continues to grow. One hundred years ago, 2 out of every 10 people lived in an urban area. By 1990, less than 40% of the global population lived in a city, but as of 2010, more than half of all people live in an urban area. By 2030, 6 out of every 10 people will live in a city, and by 2050, this proportion will increase to 7 out of 10 people. Currently, around half of all urban dwellers live in cities with between 100 000 - 500 000 people, and fewer than 10% of urban dwellers live in megacities (defined by UN HABITAT as a city with a population of more than 10 million).
So, certainly in a bit more than a generation we have a supermajority of proletarians all across the globe.

With this in mind, can't we just plan ahead today and start building our organisations with 'revolutionary patience', not only in the core capitalist countries but also in what we today still regard as the third world?

[(A)]

Can you have a per-industrialized socialist revolution or does our cause only reach its ignition point when the enemy is at their most oppressive and the Proletariat are fully aware and prepared?

What does that say for us who live in welfare states where politicians like Obama and other social democrats constantly attempt to mask the slavery that capitalism imposes on us? Can we revolt while the people are content with there lie?
Should we first cast down the welfare state so that people can see what unabridged capitalism does?

I have told my Libertarian boss that I would like to see his dream of un-restricted Capitalism come to reality because I Know it will only end in revolution.
Should we support the Libertarians so that we can later cast them down with the new, stronger and fully aware Proletariat?

[Q]

Can you have a per-industrialized socialist revolution or does our cause only reach its ignition point when the enemy is at their most oppressive and the Proletariat are fully aware and prepared?
There are several problems here, so I'll need to untangle this:
1. "Can you have a per-industrialized socialist revolution?"
No. The reason for this is essentially threefold: First, capitalism is a global system and has a global division of labour. Therefore, any evolution of our social structure needs to be a global alternative. Second, many resources are very unevenly distributed across the globe. To counter this we need, at the very least, continental (like European) or regional unity (like the Arab world). Thirdly, we are living within the context of a capitalist system of states, a hierarchy. This is often called 'imperialism', although there exist multiple hierarchies (those of the US, Russia, Iran, etc) which have more or less influence on the globe. Just breaking out of a hierarchy will have geopolitical, military and economic consequences. To counter this we also need to act globally.

2. "... or does our cause only reach its ignition point when the enemy is at their most oppressive ..."
No. It is a general rule of thumb that the proletariat needs political freedoms in order to act like a class. Underground organisations only go so far and will more often than not lead to disillusionment and general apathy, besides spontaneous and unorganised uprises which mean nothing.

3. "... and the Proletariat are fully aware and prepared?"
Yes and no. Yes, obviously our class needs to be prepared and fully aware in order to make revolution. But the road to this is via patient organising and educating our class, not via dependence on spontaneous upsurges. In short, we need a party precisely to be able to form our class into a collective force, which is organised around programmatic goals.


What does that say for us who live in welfare states where politicians like Obama and other social democrats constantly attempt to mask the slavery that capitalism imposes on us? Can we revolt while the people are content with there lie?
Should we first cast down the welfare state so that people can see what unabridged capitalism does?
What welfare state? Neoliberal policies have teared down most if not all welfare policies in the last 30 years or so. Also, Obama is a social-democrat? No. US politics can't simply be equated to European politics in this way, it leads to confused conclusions. And again, as we've seen these last 30 years of neoliberal attacks, we don't have as a result a militant working class, quite the contrary. People are struggling to survive, how can we expect them to fight?


I have told my Libertarian boss that I would like to see his dream of un-restricted Capitalism come to reality because I Know it will only end in revolution.
No. Capitalism, without a workers movement that explicitly fights for communism as a programmatic goal, will lead to a movement that will exist within the context of 'what is possible' under capitalism. It will not lead to revolution in the sense that it will overthrow capitalism. It might, again, at best lead to an upsurge that overthrows a government, like in Egypt for example with Mubarak. We need communists that aim to transform the movement from a 'bourgeois workers movement' to one that fights for an alternative society.


Should we support the Libertarians so that we can later cast them down with the new, stronger and fully aware Proletariat?
No, for all the reasons given above.

[(A)]

What welfare state? Neoliberal policies have teared down most if not all welfare policies in the last 30 years or so. Also, Obama is a social-democrat? No. US politics can't simply be equated to European politics in this way, it leads to confused conclusions. And again, as we've seen these last 30 years of neoliberal attacks, we don't have as a result a militant working class, quite the contrary. People are struggling to survive, how can we expect them to fight?

I was referring to country's like France, the UK, Canada and the Nordic states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

As for Obama, the party has promoted a social liberal platform and the USA is considered a welfare state. A weak one but one.

The point I was trying to make was that will the working class see that they are slaves and be willing to rise up when there are social programs like welfare, public healthcare and education?

Do these things help the cause of revolution or merely weaken the resolve of the working class into a "Well I guess things are getting better" mentality. I mean who wants to fight back when they are getting free money?

[Q]

I was referring to country's like France, the UK, Canada and the Nordic states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
All of these countries adopted the neoliberal logic to a more or lesser extent.


As for Obama, the party has promoted a social liberal platform and the USA is considered a welfare state. A weak one but one.
Which he abandoned directly after coming to power.


The point I was trying to make was that will the working class see that they are slaves and be willing to rise up when there are social programs like welfare, public healthcare and education?
One of the main reasons why neoliberal logic was adopted in the first place was because the Keynesian policies - the policy foundation beneath the 'welfare state' - emboldened the working class, the symbolic peak of which was May 1968 France. To the bourgeoisie this was a major turning point, which led them to drop Keynesian policies.

So, the opposite of what you're saying has historically been the case.


Do these things help the cause of revolution or merely weaken the resolve of the working class into a "Well I guess things are getting better" mentality. I mean who wants to fight back when they are getting free money?
Besides this not being the case, it also leans on the unspoken assumption (which I criticised in my previous post) that all we fundamentally need to do is to create 'objective' conditions to radicalise the working class in order to get to revolution. This essentially turns us, the revolutionary left, into cheerleaders for every 'radical' action the working class takes. This is simply the wrong approach, leading nowhere. What we need to aim for is to try and 'merge' the communist programme with the existing working class movement, thereby transforming it.

As an aside: What does this all have to do with the topic (third world demographics)? Wouldn't it deserve its own topic?

[(A)]

Sorry my question about this was originally just about when the situation would be ready for revolution can occur in a country like Africa.
I got side tracked with the welfare state question.

[Q]

Sorry my question about this was originally just about when the situation would be ready for revolution can occur in a country like Africa.
I got side tracked with the welfare state question.
I suppose this was completely unclear to me then ;)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Sorry my question about this was originally just about when the situation would be ready for revolution can occur in a country like Africa.
I got side tracked with the welfare state question.
'Africa' isn't a country.

[(A)]

'Africa' isn't a country.

Oops editing error. I revise my posts over and over and I still miss stuff. :o

[Luís Henrique]

There has been an unfortunately emotional exchange in recent weeks concerning Third World demographics and strategy.

One problem with the term "Third World" is that it is ill-defined. Some people seem to think that the Third World encompasses everything that is not Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, and the US. Others seem to think that the Third World is only Africa, Haiti, and a few poor Asian countries.

The main issue is, some people seem to think that the Third World is, by definition, the places where capitalist relations aren't fully developed. If such is the case, as capitalism develops, all nations will leave the Third World, and become First World. Some go ahead and twist that into all nations developing into First World markets, with First World life standards.

Perhaps it would be better to talk about capitalist center and capitalist periphery, which would avoid such kind of stageist confusion.


A few years ago, I read some literature by left academics that suggest there has been a shift in Third World class demographics. They have suggested that rural proletarians are now commonplace.

Well, as far as I am concerned, Brazil is firmly in the Third World. Or in other words, firmly in the capitalist periphery. And here rural proletarians are common place.


Upon further scrutiny, however, I also found that they've got things wrong on the status of small tenant farmers and sharecroppers, not to mention urban elements who are under modern debt peonage just to operate things like shops.

This may be, but when I say rural proletarians are common place in Brazil, I am talking about rural wage slaves. People who are paid a wage for their work, just like an urban worker.


According to these authors, they're all now part of the working class, just because the peasantry doesn't exist in the Third World anymore.

I am pretty sure that the peasantry exists in the Third World.

Indeed, I am quite sure that the peasantry exists in the First World as well.

There are two things, however, that should be noticed: first, the peasantry is dwindling in numbers, here as elsewhere. Second, the peasantry is no longer what it used to be: subsistence agriculture is giving way to mercantile agriculture, even where the labour relations haven't changed. And particularly, the dependent peasantry - tied to landlords by traditional links of patriarchal loyalty - is particularly disappearing, replaced not only by rural wage earners, but also by independent peasants or people who are formally independent but are really slaves of mortgages or monopsonic practices of big capital.

Luís Henrique

[Tower of Bebel]

During the Cold War, Ireland used to be part of the "Third World". Just like Switserland or Finland. When the Cold War ended, the terms "First World" and "Second World" almost totally vanished. "Third World" remains, but is now almost synonymous with poverty.

[Luís Henrique]

During the Cold War, Ireland used to be part of the "Third World". Just like Switserland or Finland.

Ireland I don't know, but Switzerland and Finland were always "First World".


When the Cold War ended, the terms "First World" and "Second World" almost totally vanished. "Third World" remains, but is now almost synonymous with poverty.

Actually in Brazil "First World" is a quite common expression.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, with the speed of developments right now, we might ask ourselves how much of an issue this still is? The World Health Organisation pout it like this (http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/)

Comrade, urbanization may be related to proletarianization, but they are not synonymous. Microfinance is one reason why they are not: http://www.revleft.com/vb/urban-peasantry-developing-t154763/index.html

Another reason why they are not is the spread of lumpen demographics. Certain petroleum-rich countries perpetuate this by discouraging many of its own citizens from working, while hiring so many foreign workers.


With this in mind, can't we just plan ahead today and start building our organisations with 'revolutionary patience', not only in the core capitalist countries but also in what we today still regard as the third world?

In the Third World, "revolutionary patience" is open to very liberal interpretation. From your Trotskyist past, you already know of the problems of "development of the productive forces" regarding bourgeois norms. If anything else, such "developmentalist" interpretation will tend to be the more prevalent one.

As I've written a couple of times in WW letters, why not combine a revolutionary interpretation with a "vigilante" form of junior partnership with anti-bourgeois yet nationalist/patriotic petit-bourgeois forces, which are better positioned to call the shots politically?

(This is the crux of TWCS, by the way.)


The main issue is, some people seem to think that the Third World is, by definition, the places where capitalist relations aren't fully developed. If such is the case, as capitalism develops, all nations will leave the Third World, and become First World. Some go ahead and twist that into all nations developing into First World markets, with First World life standards.

Perhaps it would be better to talk about capitalist center and capitalist periphery, which would avoid such kind of stageist confusion.

My definition of "Third World" in the modern era is any country or large region in which the working class is outnumbered by the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie.


And particularly, the dependent peasantry - tied to landlords by traditional links of patriarchal loyalty - is particularly disappearing, replaced not only by rural wage earners, but also by independent peasants or people who are formally independent but are really slaves of mortgages or monopsonic practices of big capital.

In other words, sharecroppers and small tenant farmers.

[RedMaterialist]

A true sharecropper, one who "shares" a portion of his crop with a landlord for permission to live and work on the land is a sort of modern day serf. So, technically, they are not wage-laborers. But, especially in the developing countries, the serf-sharecroppers are disappearing as giant corporations buy up the land and replace the sharecroppers with wage-labor. The same process must have happened in the late middle ages when landlords forced serfs off the land (or serfs simply escaped) by clearancing. The serfs were forced into the towns where they had no choice but to become wage-laborers.

So the "third world" is developing in more or less the same way as did the "first world" 300 yrs ago with the difference that the development is happening almost instantaneously without the corresponding development of a new petit-bourgeois class. Where it once took centuries for the capitalist-worker class division to develop, it now happens overnight.

Another major difference is that the modern farm worker is not confronted with the capitalist-owner but with the corporate manager, a situation which also took 300 yrs in the developed world to happen.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A true sharecropper, one who "shares" a portion of his crop with a landlord for permission to live and work on the land is a sort of modern day serf. So, technically, they are not wage-laborers.

Of course.


But, especially in the developing countries, the serf-sharecroppers are disappearing as giant corporations buy up the land and replace the sharecroppers with wage-labor.

I'm not sure. "Agribusinesses" and corporate farms are the forms that tend to rely on wage labour, not estate farms. There's even the long-standing counter-argument that tries to prove that proliferate small farmers are more productive on an individual basis than farm workers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Can you have a per-industrialized socialist revolution or does our cause only reach its ignition point when the enemy is at their most oppressive and the Proletariat are fully aware and prepared?

It depends on how you define "socialist revolution," but I do believe that Third World Caesarean Socialism is the way to go: People’s Histories, Blocs, and "Managed Democracy" Reconsidered (http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html)

It is all of unabashedly petit-bourgeois revolutionary change, thoroughly state-capitalist development, and "socialist" "transition" to proletarian demographic majorities.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What of farmers on state or community held land?

[Die Neue Zeit]

What of farmers on state or community held land?

If they have sharecropping or small tenant arrangements, they are petit-bourgeois regardless of who owns the underlying land: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_joint_cultivation_of_land

[Creative Destruction]

Ireland I don't know, but Switzerland and Finland were always "First World".



Actually in Brazil "First World" is a quite common expression.

Luís Henrique

This just goes to your point that "third world" is ill-defined. Some political scientists pre-Cold War used it in professional papers to refer to officially neutral or non-aligned states. It didn't necessarily mean "poor country," but it happened that most third world countries were extremely poor and so it sort of became a catch-all term in the popular sphere of politics (away from the academic journals) for the poor non-aligned countries.

Post-Cold War, "developed" and "developing" has taken over as the primary dichotomy for referring to poorer nations vis-a-vis richer nations. "First world" and "third world" are still used as politically loaded labels with a very loose definition of what actually constitutes either (not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but that's what's happening.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Post-Cold War, "developed" and "developing" has taken over as the primary dichotomy for referring to poorer nations vis-a-vis richer nations. "First world" and "third world" are still used as politically loaded labels with a very loose definition of what actually constitutes either (not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but that's what's happening.)

Do you have alternative terms of your own for countries with proletarian demographic majorities and those with proletarian demographic minorities?

I'd like to quote Lars Lih's paraphrase of Trotsky which I just found:

http://www.academia.edu/5895719/Permanent_Revolution_-_But_Without_Socialism ("Permanent Revolution But Without Socialism")


The proletariat should cap its introduction of political freedoms and a thoroughgoing democratic republic by announcing its intention never to forego power voluntarily, then embarking on a policy that it knows cannot succeed, instigating in this way an armed revolt among a majority of the population, and thus deliberately creating a situation so desperate that the proletarian government can only be rescued by a foreign revolution that may or may not happen. Any other policy would discredit socialism.

There is an alternative to any minority class announcing its intention to never hand over power voluntarily, and then knowingly and cynically embarking on adventurist domestic policies that it knows cannot succeed, only to instigate insurrection by the majority of the population, and thus intentionally creating a scenario so desperate that ultimate success or failure depends on foreign affairs.

[Luís Henrique]

My definition of "Third World" in the modern era is any country or large region in which the working class is outnumbered by the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie.

So, it is basically "nowhere", or at most "quickly dwindling remote areas in Africa or Central Asia".

It doesn't seem a very useful definition to me.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

In other words, sharecroppers and small tenant farmers.

No. Tenant farmers pay (monetary) rents, sharecroppers pay rents in kind.

What I am talking about is small land proprietors who do not pay rents (because they own their land), but are victims of monopsonic practices of industrial companies. Much like the proprietor of a McDonalds venue is subjected to the franchise company, while at the same time is still the owner of his small business.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

So, it is basically "nowhere", or at most "quickly dwindling remote areas in Africa or Central Asia".

Luis, I remain very skeptical of your possible use of Banaji's work on the subject.


No. Tenant farmers pay (monetary) rents, sharecroppers pay rents in kind.

What I am talking about is small land proprietors who do not pay rents (because they own their land)

Regardless, neither sharecroppers nor small tenant farmers are farm workers. Of course small land proprietors who do not pay monetary rents or rents in kind are more obvious cases of the rural petit-bourgeoisie.


Much like the proprietor of a McDonalds venue is subjected to the franchise company, while at the same time is still the owner of his small business.

Yes, but those would be part of the urban petit-bourgeoisie (http://www.revleft.com/vb/urban-peasantry-developing-t154763/index.html).

[Luís Henrique]

Regardless, neither sharecroppers nor small tenant farmers are farm workers. Of course small land proprietors who do not pay monetary rents or rents in kind are more obvious cases of the rural petit-bourgeoisie.

Yes, they are part of the petty bourgeoisie. What is different is that their relation to big capital is not the traditional relation between tenants or sharecroppers and landlords, but more similar to the relation between the urban petty bourgeoisie and banks or monopolies. Ergo, a kind of relation that is typical of advanced capitalism, not of pre-or-proto-capitalism.

Anyway, they are a minority. The bulk of rural workers nowadays are wage slaves. Even in most "third world" countries, ie, in the capitalist periphery, away from the capitalist centre.

Luís Henrique