Are farmers bourgeois?

[Dr Mindbender]

This debate came up recently in OI and i'd like to expand on it a little without any reactionary rubbernecks.

Some would argue that farmers are beourgiose on the grounds that by in large, they are wealthy landowners who manage a means of production as a profit orientated business.
The detractors of this argument claim not all farmers are wealthy landownwers, and many of whom are dependent on their own labour rather than that of others.

So which theory is right?

[manic expression]

The problem is that "farmer" is basically a nebulous term by itself. Someone who owns a corporate farm (if you want to call them a farmer, which I don't) is not the same as a family farmer, and a family farmer in the US is not the same as a peasant in Bolivia or Central America or Vietnam.

For one to be bourgeois, one must own the means of production. A family farm doesn't qualify, but someone who owns a massive industrialized corporate farm does. In my opinion, the owner of a corporate farm is no farmer at all, he is a bourgeois like any other, and the farm is just like any factory or chain of hotels.

So no, "farmers" are not bourgeois if you ask me.

Most farmers have historically been counterrevolutionary, but that's another discussion.

[Dr Mindbender]

im referring mainly to the stereotype, owns a house, set of fields, tractor, animals etc.

Is he a worker or a toff?

[manic expression]

No, he definitely is not a worker, he doesn't sell his labor. He owns only enough means of production to work a small farm, making him petit-bourgeois IMO. There are differences between famers and urban/suburban petit-bourgeois groups, but I think that catagorization works well.

[xAtlasx]

I agree with manic expression, there are numerous types of farmers in the world but none would fall under the banner of bourgeois.

Those "corporate farmers" aren't really farmers at all but workers in the traditional sense of the term. Most farms in The US are examples of this. The exploitation of farmers as workers just gets worse as you work your way south in the new world.
Look at Chiapas as a prime example.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think the big industrial farmers like the ones that mass produce battery poultry would definitely be beourgiose.

Unsurprisingly the quality of their food is often the worst.

[Annie K.]

The stereotypical farmer who owns his means of production is disappearing for another reason : the standards of production imposed by the market compel many of them, if they are not protected by the state, to use patented, genetically modified seeds.

It seems like the 21st century's answer to the 20th century's land reforms in the South.

[BIG BROTHER]

well the stereotyped version of the farmer in the US would be in my opinion like some have said before, a petit-bourgeoisie. The owners of those industrialized farms are bourgeoisie.

[Dros]

Small farmers that own a small patch of land and a tractor et. all. are petty bourgeois.

[Spasiba]

Question, then, how are they run under socialism?

[Niccolò Rossi]

For one to be bourgeois, one must own the means of production.

I'm afraid that's a very insufficient definition of the bourgeoisie. A class is not only defined by it's relationship to the means of production (legally expressed most commonly, but not always in the form of private ownership).

A brilliant defintion of 'class' as a general concept is given by G.E.M. de Ste. Croix in his The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World.


Class [...] is the collective social expression of the fact of exploitation, the way in which exploitation is embodied in a social structure. By exploitation I mean the appropriation of part of the product of the labour of others [...]

A class [...] is a group of persons in a community identified by their position in the whole system of social production, defined above all according to their relationship (primarily in terms of degree of ownership or control) to the conditions of production (that is to say, the means and labour of production) and to other classes. Legal position [...] is one of the factors that may help to determine class: its share in doing so will depend on how far it affects the type and degree of exploitation practised or suffered [...]

[...]

It is the essence of a class society that one or more smaller classes, in virtue of their control over the means of production (most commonly exercised through ownership of the means of production) [4], will be able to exploit – that is, to appropriate a surplus at the expense of – the larger classes, and thus constitute an economically and socially [...] superior class or classes.

[4] 'Most Commonly', but not always: my definition allows for e.g. Control being exercised by directors of a limited company who are not majority shareholders.

Emphasis is mine.


im referring mainly to the stereotype, owns a house, set of fields, tractor, animals etc.

As has been noted, such an individual would be petty-bourgeois. Whilst they control certain means of production (expressed in the form of private ownership most commonly), they do not have sufficient capital to employ the work of others and must directly perform productive labour themselves.

[manic expression]

I'm afraid that's a very insufficient definition of the bourgeoisie. A class is not only defined by it's relationship to the means of production (legally expressed most commonly, but not always in the form of private ownership).

A brilliant defintion of 'class' as a general concept is given by G.E.M. de Ste. Croix in his The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World.

Interesting, but I'm not sure. The bourgeoisie, prior to the industrial revolution and other developments, could not exploit the labor of society as it does today. As Marx notes, the bourgeoisie survived where it could, and the growth of medieval communes and towns led to its rise; this underlined a completely different relation to and position within the exploitation of society (feudal society, as opposed to modern capitalist society). How is this explained?

[shorelinetrance]

Question, then, how are they run under socialism?

pretty much the exact same way, there was a thread recently explaining farming under socialism, search for it.

[trivas7]

I'm afraid that's a very insufficient definition of the bourgeoisie. A class is not only defined by it's relationship to the means of production (legally expressed most commonly, but not always in the form of private ownership).

A brilliant defintion of 'class' as a general concept is given by G.E.M. de Ste. Croix in his [I]The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World.

"Class [...] is the collective social expression of the fact of exploitation, the way in which exploitation is embodied in a social structure. By exploitation I mean the appropriation of part of the product of the labour of others [...]"

Why do you like this obscure definition of class? Marx defined it as person's relationship to the mean of production -- his real relationship not his juridical relationship. Objective and clean in my book.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Why do you like this obscure definition of class?

Obscure!? In what way is this definition obscure? On an side note, I find it rather humorous that it is one of our most vocal dialecticians claiming the definition of class I provided to be obscure. No hard feelings ;)


Marx defined it as person's relationship to the mean of production.

Firstly, I would like to see you quote Marx on this matter. The definition you give here is what can be regarded as a common sense definition of class in Marxism, however, it's actual basis in the writings of Marx is much more shaky. A great article to read on this matter is Bertell Ollam's Marx's use of Class (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/class.php). It manages to shed light on, or should I say, restore it to it's blurred existance as found in Marx's writings.

Since Marx never provided an authoritative definition of class, employing the word rather loosely, using different criterion to define particular classes at different instants. The reson why I especially like the definition of class provided by G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, is that it sums up in a rather simple manner the general gist of Marx's concept conveyed throughout his writings in a rather contradictory and dynamic manner.

Lastly, I would like to point out that I believe your objection is slightly misplaced. It is important to differentiate between the concept of class and what defines a particular class.

"Class [...] is the collective social expression of the fact of exploitation, the way in which exploitation is embodied in a social structure. By exploitation I mean the appropriation of part of the product of the labour of others [...]". This passage is defining the concept of class itself. On the other hand your defintion (albeit rather flimsy and reductionist) along with the one provided by G.E.M de Ste. Croix following the above quoted passage, define a class.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The bourgeoisie, prior to the industrial revolution and other developments, could not exploit the labor of society as it does today. As Marx notes, the bourgeoisie survived where it could, and the growth of medieval communes and towns led to its rise; this underlined a completely different relation to and position within the exploitation of society (feudal society, as opposed to modern capitalist society). How is this explained?

Well of course the bourgeoisie took on a very different form during it's birth in the middle ages. It was unable to employ the labour of workers and where not at this point a ruling class. However, we are discussing the bourgeoisie as they exist in modern capitalism.

If we were to define a class as you wish to, that is, by their relationship to the means of production this would mean that only two classes would exist: a class of owners comprising capitalist, petty-bourgeoisie, landlords etc. and a class of property-less individuals including the lumpen-proletariat, proletariat, various 'middle class' elements etc.

Matter of fact, if we were to apply the definition you provided to all of 'class society' in the past we would come to the very odd conclusion that only two classes have ever existed comprising all sorts of heterogeneous pre-capitalist elements and that despite the ongoing war between these two classes the oppressed class has never managed to be victorious, despite the transition through various modes of production over the course of their class war. This conclusion is certainly not one that Marx would have agreed with.

[Invader Zim]

For the most part petite-bourgeoisie, but there are those who own multiple farms and employ farmers to operate and manage the farms; the former I would class as bourgeoisie, and the latter workers.

[apathy maybe]

As has been mentioned, farmers, by the Marxian analysis, tend to be petit-bourgeois. This is talking about both small and large single family owned farms, where the farmer and the family work on the farm, sometimes with the help of hired hands.

I was going to add some more to this, and then I realised how boring Marxian analysis really is.

Sufficient to say, farmers tend to be conservative, because change tends to be negative to the farming business. Of course, if the change is demonstrably good, then they often go for it! As well, living in the rural areas, they don't have as much interaction with different folk, and thus again can be set in their ways and having nothing to remove their stereotypes of other people.

Come a revolution, most farmers would probably support it, if they were guaranteed a couple of simple things, one that they won't "loose their land" or be forced into a collective (which any libertarian revolution wouldn't force them to do), and two that they could continue to live and farm as they were.

A collectivist society is actually a better society for farmers (and again, I'm not talking big agri), because they would have an easier time getting the things they need, and then off loading what they produce. And they don't have the competition from big business farms (though they would from the collectivist farms).

Of course, you are free to disagree, but I get bored easily, so if I don't respond, prompt me.

[Jeanette]

I grew up on a farm, and for a couple of years, I've been discussing politics with my father late at night when everyone else was sleeping. When I was old enough to vote, we came to a certain point where I realized that me and my father would never have the same opinion in politics. I thought he would be a leftist, just like me, but since his farm is a small company/business, he is far off to the other side.
I don't know if this was of any help, but where I come from (the North of Sweden), all farmers I know of have made their farms into small companies, even if they haven't got any employees.
I believe that I come from a working class-family, but I'm one of the very few leftist in my family. Absurd? Yes, indeed.

[Dimentio]

Well, that is actually deep-seated political traditions. People in he Swedish country-side generally changes opinions with their parties, not the other way around. I know about semi-fascists who are voting social democrat because their grandfathers and fathers did so.

My grandfather was a life-long centrist for example. "The Agricultural Union", he said, "that are things".

[Nietzsche's Ghost]

There are many bourgeoise farmers but you cant call a farmer bourgeoise just because he owns a tractor, a truck etc. Lots of farmers(at least in my area)dont want to buy all the machinery but they must in order to stay afloat and make a living against the huge factory farms. I live close to one of those factory farms that have a small army of workers but it is the only factory farm in my county. My family's farm employs one man to help but he probably makes a better living than us and he doesnt work everyday and other than that it is just my father my mother and i running the farm with my mother working another job in town. So yes there is definitley bourgeoise farmers but not at all is every farmer bourgeoise.

[trivas7]

Since Marx never provided an authoritative definition of class, employing the word rather loosely, using different criterion to define particular classes at different instants. The reson why I especially like the definition of class provided by G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, is that it sums up in a rather simple manner the general gist of Marx's concept conveyed throughout his writings in a rather contradictory and dynamic manner.

Lastly, I would like to point out that I believe your objection is slightly misplaced. It is important to differentiate between the concept of class and what defines a particular class.

"Class [...] is the collective social expression of the fact of exploitation, the way in which exploitation is embodied in a social structure. By exploitation I mean the appropriation of part of the product of the labour of others [...]". This passage is defining the concept of class itself. On the other hand your defintion (albeit rather flimsy and reductionist) along with the one provided by G.E.M de Ste. Croix following the above quoted passage, define a class.
Perhaps I misspoke and you are correct that Marx uses the term 'class' loosely. I assume he does so to pursue a many-sided look at it. And it's the concept class I'm concerned with, not a particular class.

Personally I find de St. Croix's definition circular. Class must be assumed in order to explain exploitation, so it begs the question to include 'exploitation' in its definition IMO.
IOW class is the social structure that embodies exploitation, I don't know what "the collective social expression" adds to the definition.

[OI OI OI]

Farmers that use wage slaves in their farms are bourgeois. They own the means of production and they employ people to work for them.
Most farmers though (In my area) I would say that they are petty bourgeois as they own the piece of land which is arguably small and it is run as a family bussiness. Those farmers we should approach with transitional demands( cheap fertilizers , cheap loans etc) in order to ally with them for the "upcoming" revolution . The proletariat needs to ally with the petty bourgeoisie of the villages and the cities in order to take power. Of course the proletariat will be the main driving force while the sections of the petty bourgeoisie auxiliary forces.
There are some farmers which are proletariat though. Especialy the immigrants in my area who don't own property and are employed by wealthy farmers for a wage next to nothing. This rural proletariat is also crucial for the revolution.
So to sum up we cannot clasify the farmers as ONLY bourgeois, or ONLY petty bourgeois or ONLY proletariat. Farmers can be any of the three with the vast majority being the last two. Of course no alliance can be made with the first which will be expropriated after the revolution .
I hope that this helped.

And remember that collectivization should be voluntary amongst our petty bourgeois allies.

[F9]

yes they are! ALTHOUGH in a revolution they would be easily approached to join revolutionary "forces",because there arent too much against workers some might feel proletarians(even if the arent)just because they dont get enough money,goverment takes part of what they are doing etc.Even if they dont join the revolution propably they wont join counter-revolutionaries either!

Fuserg9:star:

[OI OI OI]

yes they are! ALTHOUGH in a revolution they would be easily approached to join revolutionary "forces",because there arent too much against workers some might feel proletarians(even if the arent)just because they dont get enough money,goverment takes part of what they are doing etc.Even if they dont join the revolution propably they wont join counter-revolutionaries either!

Fuserg9http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/Star.gif

Comrade you are mistaken. Please read my above post.
You cannot classify them ONLY as bourgeois.
Some that own their land and employ wage labour can be clasiffied as bourgeois but most are not bourgeois but just pity bourgeois.
Although there are some proletarian farmers also.

I feel very strongly about this since the attitude of the proletariat towards the farmers is crucial for the revolution. We should not make the same mistakes that for example Stalin did by forcefully expropriating the farmers creating tons of problems for the people of the Soviet Union, just like we should not over-glorify the role of the farmers (which is only an auxiliary force in alliance with the proletariat in a revolutionary situation) , like the Narodniks, the Maoists and some others do.
This is a crucial matter and seeing that some revleft users can be revolutionary cadres in a future revolution they must not have the wrong attitude to the farmers.

[F9]

Comrade you are mistaken. Please read my above post.
You cannot classify them ONLY as bourgeois.
Some that own their land and employ wage labour can be clasiffied as bourgeois but most are not bourgeois but just pity bourgeois.
Although there are some proletarian farmers also.

I feel very strongly about this since the attitude of the proletariat towards the farmers is crucial for the revolution. We should not make the same mistakes that for example Stalin did by forcefully expropriating the farmers creating tons of problems for the people of the Soviet Union, just like we should not over-glorify the role of the farmers (which is only an auxiliary force in alliance with the proletariat in a revolutionary situation) , like the Narodniks, the Maoists and some others do.
This is a crucial matter and seeing that some revleft users can be revolutionary cadres in a future revolution they must not have the wrong attitude to the farmers.

arent and the pity bourgeois,bourgeois at the end?i dont use the pity etc classification because i am not really well into this and i might put them in another category where they do not belong.So i classified them as bourgeoise even pitty or big ot something else.
Anyway i agree with your post,farmers even as pity bourgeoise will be aming us in the revolution of course if they want it.Thats what i said and before that i can imagine that farmers when they get to know about what we represent will join us!
Good post and you get a rep for it!;)

Fuserg9:star:

[Nietzsche's Ghost]

Great post OI!