Peasants

[Enragé]

Peasants (as in small farmers, not the large ones) are regarded in "traditional" marxism as small capitalists. I however dispute this. Are they not exploited as well? Should they not be considered just as "the proletariat of the countryside/an not-industrialized nation"? The zapatistas for example have great following among the peasants. And so did the Russian communists in the early stages of the revolution (the bulk of the red army comprised of empoverished peasants).

[NovelGentry]

The peasant doesn't really exist in advanced capitalist nations. Marx proposed the bourgeoisie would create the proletariat and develop production and centralize that power within the hands of a small group. This means every form of petty-bourgeoisie and peasant who might have capitalist interests then, or now, effectively dissolved to one or the other groups. In the case of most farmers, they have been replaced by corporate farms. There exists small groups now who are given lump sums for their farmland, and continue to work and live there and produce, effectively creating neo-peasants, but the numbers are not large, and in the end, they are often converted to regular wage slaves to the corporate farm or within a whole new field.

Small farmers who own property and means of production are more considered petty-bourgeoisie, ready to be bought out by the corporate farm as time goes on.

[Enragé]

This is all true. But worldwide, you need peasants to create food dor everyone. So in a worldwide revolution the peasants would be a substantial "sub-class". One i consider linked to the proletariat.

[NovelGentry]

But worldwide, you need peasants to create food dor everyone.

Ummm... no? You need workers, preferably agricultural workers, whether or not they are peasants is only determined by their relation to the means of production.


So in a worldwide revolution the peasants would be a substantial "sub-class". One i consider linked to the proletariat.

World-wide revolution should/will not occur. At least not in the terms you provide as if the entire world will revolt instantaneously. The advancements to socialism can be made in a number of countries which then work together, and liberate other nations as they delve into revolution, or even attempt to spark revolution there. While we should consistently strive to push revolution in all parts of the globe, it will not be so simple as just seeing the entire world proletariat overthrow the entire system.

Furthermore, on the condition that a nation that still had any significan number of peasants, it is unlikely that capitalism has even seen it's due coarse there. I personally consider peasants to be reactionary. In all instances we have seen where peasants played a major role, we have watched division amongst this "super class" of peasants+proletariates divide later into those who oppose capitalism and those who remain more accepting of it, to the point where if these peasants are a majority, capitalism begins to take hold again, even if as a "compromise" from those wanting socialism.

This cannot ever be a solution. Capitalism first, globalization will and must play out and the more dissolved the peasant class becomes, the closer and closer we'll see the world in a position to move as a whole, but even still... I think it's difficult to simply say it will be one giant revolution.

[Enragé]

So you simply say capitalism must first exist before communism? That we must let the people of the world suffer FIRST under the coming about of capitalism and THEN try to liberate them from it? Thats a preposterous suggestion. Look at the zapatistas, the peasants ARE an anti-capitalist force, and a large one, and they are linked to the working class. Vietnam, Cuba and many more revolutions were all based around the PEASANT sub-class.

[NovelGentry]

So you simply say capitalism must first exist before communism?

Capitalism, unfortunately, it a necessary step in advancing the means of production. It is the social progression from feudalism that makes the most amount of sense as material conditions change. The only way to skip capitalism would be for some major technological breakthrough to have occured under feudalism that effectively obsoleted any of the growing property relations we see under capitalism which grow out of the little advancements.

Technology makes progressive changes that change our productive capacity and thus change acceptable relations to those products. These aspects also alienate us from that production and those products. It creates or is sustained by the division of labor, which alienates us from one another and the overall product as well. Varying levels of these things create different divisions, those are your classes.


That we must let the people of the world suffer FIRST under the coming about of capitalism and THEN try to liberate them from it?

We must have enough productive forces to sustain whatever nations would attempt to become socialist. It would probably be possible for this to happen if all advanced capitalist nations advanced first and then brought other nations to similar change, this way here the productive forces overcome the lack of productive forces elsewhere. The problem is overcoming the mindsets which will be completely dependent on their regional material conditions.

Capitalism overcomes this issue to begin with by globalizing itself through it's existence. But materially speaking some nations are still only equivalent to where the US was in the early 1900s -- some have strange mixes with early industrial scenes to even earlier agricultural scenes. You can have all the revolutions you want in these areas, unless there is a total advancement of these material conditions the revolution is based on something far different than what I feel capable of acheiving socialism.


Thats a preposterous suggestion. Look at the zapatistas, the peasants ARE an anti-capitalist force, and a large one, and they are linked to the working class.

Yeah... look at em. Look at socialist Mexico in all it's glory!!!! Hey, remember that time China and the USSR had peasant prominent revolutions too... and they are basking in socialism today!!!


Vietnam, Cuba and many more revolutions were all based around the PEASANT sub-class

Vietnam's on the socialist ball too!!! Hell, and Cuba is practically full-fledged communism now... yeah... ummm.

[Enragé]

"Vietnam's on the socialist ball too!!! Hell, and Cuba is practically full-fledged communism now... yeah... ummm"

still, they were revolutions.

"Hey, remember that time China and the USSR had peasant prominent revolutions too... and they are basking in socialism today!!!"

Thats why the zapatistas have developed a more decentralized, local form of socialism.

[NovelGentry]

still, they were revolutions.

So were all the capitalist revolutions.


Thats why the zapatistas have developed a more decentralized, local form of socialism.

And if it wasn't so local and underpopulated, they'd have a hard time maintaining it. We want this for the entire world -- we need the means ot provide for the entire world. An underdeveloped part of the world with a scarce population might find it extremely simple to move to socialism... just dont' expect their population to be able to grow by that much and don't expect it to last forever in the face of capitalism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
still, they were revolutions.

Perhaps that is your difficulty; there are different kinds of revolutions that have, perforce, different consequences.

Peasant insurrections normally lead to despotism (the leaders become the new ruling class) or to capitalism. In our era, peasant insurrections are often led by Maoists...who have shown that they can skillfully manage the transition from semi-feudal, neo-colonized societies into modern capitalism.

But to expect peasant revolutions to result in socialism or communism is like expecting medieval London to build a steam-powered railroad. The material basis for those advanced formations are simply absent.


That's why the Zapatistas have developed a more decentralized, local form of socialism.

I'm not aware that the Zapatistas have developed any kind of "socialism".

Perhaps they've instituted some "communal" arrangements and a more equitable distribution of extreme poverty.

But they no longer seem to be a factor of much significance in Mexican politics.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

"An underdeveloped part of the world with a scarce population might find it extremely simple to move to socialism... "

still its moving to socialism, with peasants! Im not saying thats where we should stop, but at least its a beginning.

[Enragé]

"I'm not aware that the Zapatistas have developed any kind of "socialism"."

They have remained a localised party with a localised, indigenous, programme, that much is true. Still they have expressed their solidarity to the people's struggles in the world. Also they have introduced far going council democracy, combined with wealth distribution. I'd call that a form of socialism.

"But they no longer seem to be a factor of much significance in Mexican politics."

Perhaps not in politics in the way of influencing big decisions, but they have great support throughout mexico, and not just the indigenous or the oppressed peasants.

[NovelGentry]

still its moving to socialism, with peasants! Im not saying thats where we should stop, but at least its a beginning.

Well some would argue primitivism is an OK form of socialism to have. The issue is not a matter of peasants being unable to understand equality, it's a matter of a population per force, moving forward without the means to sustain itself amongst that equality.

To bring up a point, Cuba has instituted various private industries in order to cope with some of it's economic hardship. There was and remains situations in Cuba where it is not because of unequal treatment or distribution but simply because the country cannot produce enough of what it needs in all areas.

Even with Cuba's peasant population and agricultural production (namely sugar) it was dependent on the proletariat of external countries, and the advanced resources of those countries for producing other necessities. It was first American utilities for farming, then Russian ones that actually made it possible to produce that sugar. Most cars in Cuba are early American 50's models.

If all poverty stricken nations "advanced" to socialism you'd see the problems with lack of food and even utilities that you see in Cuba. Capitalism is a NECESSARY step... imagine Cuba without even the means that it had from the US pre-Castro... Imagine they didn't even have the utilities they had before, the weapons they had before (much of the military weapons which the guerrillas took from soldiers was American weaponry) -- what kind of revolution would it have been? boards and nails and pitchforks? and for what? equal distribution of sugar so everyone can get diabetes as soon as possible with no means to produce necessary medicine to treat it?

Cuba has advanced itself nicely from even what little it had and what little it got. It is essentially why I consider even what it was capable of to be something of a miracle. But just like the USSR advanced itself, it advances because of capitalist change. The USSR began undergoing more capitalist policies, it's revisionism allowed for much of the advancment which made Cuban trade as capable as it was. Cuba itself takes on varying private capitalist aspects every now and then, while never pushing it's major categorization beyond that of state capitalism. Calling either the USSR or Cuba socialist is something of a misnomer, and saying it has the capability of seeing socialism or had the capability of seeing socialism before seeing these capitalist stages is pure faith and idealism.

[Enragé]

I dont think people will starve if underdeveloped countries will revolt. In africa people die of food shortages because the food is being sold to capitalist countries, if they would revolt, they would have enough food. THe capitalist world is dependent on third world nations for a large part of their food. Not the other way around.

[NovelGentry]

I dont think people will starve if underdeveloped countries will revolt. In africa people die of food shortages because the food is being sold to capitalist countries, if they would revolt, they would have enough food. THe capitalist world is dependent on third world nations for a large part of their food. Not the other way around.

Not true. The situation is mixed, as usual, but the United States, for example, maintains food and agriculture as one of it's top exports, along with other products necessary for the maintenence of foreign agriculture.

Many on the far left would like to pretend that the "capitalist world" -- or simply "the west" is dependent on third world nations for much of it's existence. They talk about breaking the third world away to crush our dependence, which although might lead to harder economic times here, is in no way the death of the nation or it's capitalism. Outside of oil and other basic natural resources, consumer goods as well as necessities are easily sustained by the population and productive forces of these nations. Further, much of our trade is with other "capitalist world" nations.

Of food, some of our primary exports include wheat and beef. If you've ever worked in a produce store or section at a super market you might have recognized what produce comes from where. And although the occasional shipment of something from argentina came through, the majority of the produce I've handled in my day was from California or Florida. The only exception I ever saw was Onions, which pretty much always came from Mexico.

To claim we have a food dependence on the third world is a flat out false claim. To claim we acquire food from the third world is not, however, we acquire a lot of things from the third world that, with the exception of oil, we have no real dependence on.

What is more often meant by this is that without the third world our capitalist system would not maintain itself the way it is now. Of course this is true -- and without us, the third world would not maintain itself the way it is now, whether you want to admit it or not.

[bolshevik butcher]

I think that in latin america the peasants are involved in the revolution, this was really a reference to europe.

[NovelGentry]

I think that in latin america the peasants are involved in the revolution, this was really a reference to europe.

Peasants have been involved in a lot of revolutions. No one is arguing that they take part -- the question is a) whether or not a nation has the material means to move forward if it still maintains any significant peasant population -- or quite possibly any at all and b) what is the mindset of the peasant who has never actually known wage slavery, to them, full blown capitalism seems as much of a solution as socialism.

[OleMarxco]

Ipso factos, the Mensheviks of the Soviet Union were mostly consistant of peasants ;)

[Enragé]

the red army almost completely comprised out of peasants.

Anyway, we've seen the zapatistas do it, so why would a peasant revolution not lead to (perhaps a somewhat primitivist) socialist way of life; wealth is equally distributed and decisions are made by councils of the people.