Marx's View on Peasants

What was Marx's view on Peasants.

What was Marx's view on Peasants.

From what I understand about Marxism

he view them as lumpenproletariat, as that they are a layer of the working class, but unlikely to ever achieve class consciousness,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

But that my understanding of his view from the anti-anarchist work that I have been reading.

From what I understand about Marxism

he view them as lumpenproletariat, as that they are a layer of the working class, but unlikely to ever achieve class consciousness,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

But that my understanding of his view from the anti-anarchist work that I have been reading.

I thought the lumpenproletariat were the criminals of the world? The thieves, murderers, and rapists who are in the prisons of capitalist countries. Peasants are the working, exploited class of feudalism. They differ from slaves in that they get to "have" their own land to work on and grow produce on but the land is actually owned by the landlord and the peasants have to pay him taxes with their actual produce. They get to keep whatever is left for them in theory, but often times the lords and their guards use the ignorance of the peasants to trick them into giving them all of their crops because they owe fees for more and more things until they are stuck into an ever mounting debt that they will never escape in their lifetime, making them virtually slave-like.

I think the Lumpenproletariat are the criminals

[FONT=Verdana]Peasants are the working, exploited class of feudalism. They differ from slaves in that they get to "have" their own land to work on and grow produce on but the land is actually owned by the landlord and the peasants have to pay him taxes with their actual produce. They get to keep whatever is left for them in theory, but often times the lords and their guards use the ignorance of the peasants to trick them into giving them all of their crops because they owe fees for more and more things until they are stuck into an ever mounting debt that they will never escape in their lifetime, making them virtually slave-like.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I'm not disagreeing with you that this is what the peasants truly are, but this is not how Karl Marx views them.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]

I think the Lumpenproletariat are the criminals

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Workers are willing to work and that is one the reasons why we have unemployment, because there are more people willing to work than there are jobs for. In fact this is the definition of unemployment. When people cannot find honest work, they just find dishonest ones. Hence some workers end up as criminals through no fault of their own. This is not mean that Lumpenproletariat are not criminals it just means that all criminals are Lumpenproletariat.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]

I thought the lumpenproletariat were the criminals of the world? The thieves, murderers, and rapists who are in the prisons of capitalist countries.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]The word lumpenproletariat came about during the Marxist versus anarchist debates. The debates centered on the origin of the revolution. Marx view was that he would come about from factory workers or proletarians. Whose meeting on a regular basis allow for them to reach class consensus and organize. On the other hand the anarchist said that the revolution would start on farms. Karl Marx counters these claims that the peasants are the proletarians, by defining them as lumpenproletariat. He points out that these peasants will never reach class consensus as they are unable to meet on a daily basis. But this is my understanding based off of Marxist versus anarchist debates. In fact anarchist normally use that it started on the farm(in there mind USSR, and other like her) to prove Marx wrong.[/FONT]

Marx was wrong about the peasants and wrong that socialism couldn't be achieved in a country like Russia or China. Luckily as he is not a religious leader why do not have to follow him religiously whilst still following the core of his views and thinking him a great man.

The most interesting thing I have seen if the shift of many (but not all) anarchists away from the support of the peasants. Now they all not only want the world to be a concrete jungle (ignoring the fact that people do enjoy visiting the countryside), but label the peasants as bourgeois and other such nonsense (not even lumpen).

Anyway, good post, Comrade Stalin!

Marx would have had no chance of observing peasants in .Britain. Were his views coloured by the Paris Commune? The French State it was believed used the peasantry as a dead weight to prevent workers from reaching their potential. Once peasants had vacated the countryside migrant labour became the source of labour for expansion, in Britain. A car worker in Milan might be one generation from the land, in fact he might own a section of vineyard or smallholding. Britain is surely the most working class of nations, in truth is the nation. Mao and others had a real battle with dogmatists, it cost many thousands of lives before it was resolved. No doubt that was repeated around the globe. Thank heavens for clear thinkers that can express themselves with simplicity. Mao was a model. Stalin too, there was no trace of romanticism in their approach to peasants. The pace of change. The pace of change has upped tempo. The working class has seen vast numbers every year swelling its ranks. Things are moving , mass migrations are the order of the day. Within national boundaries and without. We need to look closely at what capital needs to survive 'cos what is good for us ain't good for them. What they want we must oppose.

Can we get some quotes and sources on Marx's views of peasants in here?

Can we get some quotes and sources on Marx's views of peasants in here?

here is a clip form wiki, but I will look for a direct quote for you.

Arguments surrounding the issue of class

Both Marxist and socialist anarchist class analyses are based on the idea that society is divided into "classes", which are created based on the control each class has upon the means of production and hence each class having differing interests. The two differ, however, in where they draw the lines between these groups. Anarcho-primitivists and post-left anarchists reject left wing politics in general (and theoretically by extension Marxist class analysis) as they typically see left wing politics as corrupt and in the former case see civilization as unreformable.

For Marxists, the two most relevant classes are the "bourgeoisie", those who own the means of production, and the "proletariat", more explicitly, the wage laborers. Marx believed that the industrial workers -and only them- would organize together, abolish the state, take control over the means of production, collectivize them, and create a classless society administered by and for workers. He believed that only the workers have the motive and power to do that. For this reason, he dismissed peasants,the "petty-bourgeois", and the "lumpen-proletariat"—the unemployed "underclass"—as incapable of creating revolution.

The anarchist class analysis predates Marxism and contradicts it. Anarchists argue that it is not the whole bourgeoisie who has control over the means of production and the state, but only a minority of them, which is part of the ruling class, but has its own concerns. Also, traditionally anarchists have rejected Marx's dismissal of the lumpen proletariat and the peasantry as revolutionary and argued that a revolution, in order to be successful, needs the support of the peasants. Classical Anarchists believed that this is only possible through the redistribution of land. That is, they explicitly reject imposing state property of the land, although voluntary collectivization is seen as more efficient and thus supported (indeed, during the Spanish revolution anarchists impulsed hundreds of collectivizations but only a tiny minority had all the land in the area, small peasants were allowed to cultivate their own land without hired labour).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchi...issue_of_class