this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
56 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13533 readers
873 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Okay so you have a farm? Big deal? And wtf does "eee aye eee aye ohhh" mean?

And why do I need to know what all the farm animals say? Jesus dude.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HumanBehaviorByBjork@hexbear.net 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

it's a song about the reactionary character of the landholding peasantry

[–] Diuretic_Materialism@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

If someone owns land how are they a peasant?

[–] Moonworm@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago

There are a lot of particulars in play in different places and times. Like peasants might own their land in a functional sense of being entitled to what it produces (minus what is owed to someone else - but this is still different from rents because it would typically be taxation payable "in kind" rather than in currency.), but they might also be bound to that land, unable to legally move where they live.

It really is difficult to apply the framework of capitalist ownership, enclosure, proletarianization, etc. In places where those things either hadn't happened or had only happened unevenly and hadn't become dominant for the majority of agricultural laborers. I think one of the big reasons that communist revolutions have largely been successful in still-industrializing, largely agrarian states is that in such a context a lot of a country's productive base is still held in distributed control by peasants.

Now, because categorization is inexact and the development of economic systems is different in every case, there are numerous cases in history where some section of the peasant, i.e. primarily subsistence agricultural class had more land they had rights to than they could farm themselves or had the necessary funds to employ people without the rights to their own land (or some land less than their capacity to work it) in effectively wage labor.

There are similarities to proletarian labor given the nature of ownership versus work, but proletarian labor has its one unique characteristics. It also bears some resemblance to landlordism, but because the wealthier peasants did not own the land that their workers lived on, the nature of this relationship is different. It's not that the agricultural laborers need to pay rents to work the land, it's that they need the income to subsist.

Of course this is a vulgar generalization and I am no expert on the matter. There are myriad specific different examples of what we might call "landholding peasantry" in contrast to some other landless peasantry.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

My understanding is that peasants need to work land for subsistence while landlords just collect rent.

[–] m532@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

Peasants are bourgeois