>>
No.398929
They’re peasants, which don’t constitute the revolutionary subject. Basically they’re erstwhile allies of the proles until the establishment of a DotP. Then they become enemies because of the leverage the peasantry has over the food supply and its unwillingness to collectivize it. Mostly because their control over the surplus they can produce to sell (if any is available) means they can extort the proletariat. Something of the like happened during the scissors crisis when the Soviets were establishing their NEP.
>>
No.398938
>>398929Isn't the term "peasantry" limited to subsistence farming though or is that not relevant here? What did Marx say about farmers?
>>
No.398943
Daily reminder that the majority of food is gown by kulaks on massive industrial farms. If it's small scale they are self-employed agricultural business owners. Peasants correct me if I'm wrong infers that they are some kinda sharecropper to a feudal lord or land owner.
>>
No.398957
>>398943Right, see that's what my question was trying to get at. The ones I described in my post, wouldn't they mostly be considered some form of petty bourgeois?
>>
No.398964
>>398943>>398957To add the difference between a sharecropper/agricultural labor (think a California fruit picker) to a small farm owner is in itself a class distinction. Kulaks where agricultural bourgeois, they owned the means to food production. A sharecropper peasant or the fruit pick sells there labor to the owner of the farm. Also whether the farm is small or big is only a similar distinction between the petite and regular bourgeoisie. The lack of understanding of this is why people say Stalin killed peasants when he killed kulaks. If you can't see these class lines then its easy to see them as the same when they are not.
>>
No.398972
>>398957I added you in last moment here
>>398964 because it just happened to be that I was writing about what you were about to ask, about before you even asked it.
>>
No.399224
>>398921If they are wage labourers who do not own the means of farming production then yes.
If they ate self sufficient petty producers who own some means of farming production then they can either be called peasants or landed farmers.
Farming itself is a type of labour, not a class.
>>
No.399232
You just answered your own question dumbass. They’re essentially small owners of farms who make their money in selling their goods to market or to a big corporation, sometimes in wages. But for the most part small farmers are not proletariat since they’re not paid a wage.