The Peasant & The Worker

[Vendetta]

What exactly makes the peasant different from the worker, in terms of leftist theory?

[Junius]

I am unsure what you mean by 'leftist theory'; that is vague. I presume you mean Marxist theory.


In what way do proletarians differ from serfs?

The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor.

The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product.

The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it.

The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences.


Principles of Communism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

[Yehuda Stern]

To expand: the working class is the class that produces value in capitalist society, unlike the peasant. Also unlike the peasant, the worker takes part in a collective productive process, which allows him to develop a collective mentality. These two differences make the workers able of being consistent revolutionaries, socialists and anti-capitalists, and the lack of them makes the peasant a possible but not completely reliable ally.

[BobKKKindle$]

The peasantry is incapable of taking the leading role in the revolutionary struggle because the peasantry is a mixed social group composed of multiple strata which all exhibit different relationships to the means of production, and is also spread over a large geographical area which undermines prospects for organization. By contrast as capitalism develops workers are concentrated in large units of production and despite differences in wages and working conditions workers all share the same relationship to the means of production and so fundamentally have the same interests.

[Hit The North]

Further to Bob's point, with every increase in the numbers of the proletariat there is a corresponding decrease in the peasantry. The global expansion of capitalist relations, which works towards the destruction of the peasantry, means that there is no peasantry worth talking about these days.

[Q]

Further to Bob's point, with every increase in the numbers of the proletariat there is a corresponding decrease in the peasantry. The global expansion of capitalist relations, which works towards the destruction of the peasantry, means that there is no peasantry worth talking about these days.

That is only true in the west. On a global scale it was only this year that there were actually more people living in a city than in rural areas.

Source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0112/p25s02-wogi.html) (mind that this was my first hit on google)

But other then that, I'm in complete agreement with previous posters.

[Junius]

It's a mistake to confuse the rural population with peasants.

Its certainly true that whether you live in the country or the city is a good indicator of whether you are a peasant or a worker, since most industries are in cities, and, funnily enough, most farms are in the country.

However, it by no means answers the question of a society's class composition - agricultural workers exist too.

[Q]

It's a mistake to confuse the rural population with peasants.

Its certainly true that whether you live in the country or the city is a good indicator of whether you are a peasant or a worker, since most industries are in cities, and, funnily enough, most farms are in the country.

However, it by no means answers the question of a society's class composition - agricultural workers exist too.

Correct. It is a good indicator, not an absolute measure. I was replying though to Bob who said that there are no peasants worth talking about these days.

[Hit The North]

Correct. It is a good indicator, not an absolute measure. I was replying though to Bob who said that there are no peasants worth talking about these days.

Peasants are one thing. Agricultural workers are another. I think you're confusing the two.

Every nation is now a part of global capitalism. There is no room anywhere for the existence of feudal relations, and hence, few peasants worth talking about.