Time to talk about peasants, who I claim in Chapter 3 of my bookA Small Farm Futurewill soon be returning to tend (or create) a small farm near you. Or may in fact include you or your descendants.
This claim is at odds with most of whats been written about rural trends over the past century or so, along two dimensions. The first is historical: peasants will be liquidated by the march of progress. As Karl Kautsky (quoted on page 246 of my book) famously put it in his agrarian question in 1899: In what ways is capital taking hold of agriculture, revolutionizing it, smashing the old forms of production and of poverty and establishing the new ones that must succeed?
The second dimension is sociological: internal tensions among small-scale farmers destabilize any coherent notion of the peasantry as an enduring entity an argument usually framed in relation to the separate class interests of upper, middle and lower peasants. So in the standard view, for reasons both external and internal, peasants are on their way to being something else.
Theres no denying that recent history furnishes evidence for this. Capital has certainly done its share of revolutionizing and smashing peasant agriculture since Kautskys day, and plenty of rural class conflict has accompanied the process. But most people heralding the demise of peasantries have been enthusiastic cheerleaders for the process rather than disinterested observers, and its possible theyve enthused a little too much.
On the one hand, Marxists like Kautsky have generally tried to divvy up peasantries into the more comfortable terrain of Marxisms Ur-conflict between free-flowing capital and free-flowing labour, making landless or land-poor lower peasants over in the image of their preferred revolutionaries, the proletariat. On the other, market liberals have seen peasants as frustrated would-be capitalist entrepreneurs, waiting only for the right moment to escape the stasis of rural society and launch more lucrative careers. Given that the clash between Marxism and liberal capitalism was among the biggest historical scripts of the 20thcentury, and that peasantries were among the biggest demographic element in the period, its hardly surprising that both these forms of peasant-hustling were pretty successful in the short-term. All the major communist regimes of the period were built on the back of peasant participation, and so was a good deal of capitalist development.
Yet while few truly autarkic, pre-capitalist peasantries like the Finnish swiddeners I mentioned in myprevious posthave survived this 20thcentury politics, nevertheless small-scale farmers oriented to producing a livelihood directly from the land using low-energy, labour-intensive methods (lets call them peasants) still havent been as comprehensively eradicated as the likes of Kautsky anticipated. Why this is so remains a matter of debate. Perhaps because of a residual peasantness, a grit in the gears of modernization or a light from the past that grimly refuses to die. Or perhaps because modernization has never been quite as successful at organizing economic life as its proponents claim, leaving people to make do with peasant forms of livelihood-making. Or because modernization has been alltoosuccessful, extracting what surplus it can from impoverished rural people and then abandoning them to take care of themselves as best they can. Or because impoverished people hedge their bets in the global economy, striving to retain a footing on rural land in case other livelihood strategies fail.
The last three of these four possibilities are basically variants of the same idea, each with a particular political spin. Modern scholarship in the peasant studies field has largely devoted itself to charting this exact terrain, inking the fine detail of the encounter between peasants and capitalist development in any number of specific times and places. Yet for all its achievements, I cant help feeling that much of this scholarship will become increasingly irrelevant with the profound changes now occurring from climate change, energy descent, nature loss and political-economic crisis. These changes demand an update to Kautskys agrarian question, that Id put like this: in what ways is capital losing control of agriculture and other spheres of production, and failing to revolutionize itself adequately with the result that its smashingitself and what are the new forms of agriculture and production that will follow?
A dissident strand of agrarian populism within peasant studies has kept alive the notion that these new forms might look a lot like older ones rural, low-capital, labour-intensive, small-scale peasant production as the necessary corrective for a waning urban industrialism. This is often dismissed as mere nostalgia for the past in the face of modern progress, or an ahistorical (essentialist) romanticization of the peasantry as a kind ofsui generiscategory. The sometime editor of theJournal of Peasant Studies, Terence Byres, criticized peasant populism on these grounds in a 2004 article, along lines that are still prevalent within the discipline: To be ahistorical is to run the risk of failing to see history changing before ones very eyes . One also has a sense of circumstances being addressed, which, if they ever existed, are clearly in the past.
Yet this becomes its own epitaph. A generation ago it might have been reasonable to dismiss the relevance of peasantries to the economic future, but history has indeed been changing before our eyes. This, as people often say, is the 21stcentury and in the 21stcentury its likely that peasantization will become a major trend. This is not, it must be repeated, out of a desire to go back to an idealized past but out of a desire to go forward to a realistic and tolerable future.
But what exactly is it about peasant lifeways that makes them relevant again? Not some essence of unchanging peasantness, but basically three other things. First, rich local traditions in how to farm renewably with little capital or exogenous energy, from which much can be learned today as we face a future with similar constraints. Second, similarly rich local traditions especially where aristocratic power has been weaker in the forms of social organization conducive to a thriving agrarian society, from which we can also learn.
On this second point, for all the dismissiveness dished out to we agrarian populists for romanticizing peasantries, ironically its precisely theunromanticnature of these peasant traditions that commends them. As described in my book, numerous local farming societies thrashed out social arrangements for optimizing land use, sharing and husbanding resources, delivering welfare and managing intergenerational succession. Typically, these were hardbitten, long-term, real-world arrangements not based in the airy generalities of modern meta-theories like the markets invisible hand or the collectivization of the means of production. For sure, peasant social arrangements, like all social arrangements, werent perfect. And they were often offensive to modernist conceptions of the good life, whether capitalist, socialist or liberal an issue I wrestle with in Part III of my book.
But whatever else they were, these arrangements are informative for the issues we will face in weathering the small farm future to come more informative, at any rate, than the dubious verities of capitalism and communism weve inherited from modernist thought, as for example in these words of V.I. Lenin:
the peasantry dreamed of equal land tenure and no power on earth could have prevented them, when freed from landlordism and from the bourgeois parliamentary republican state, from trying to realize this dream. The proletarians said to the peasants: We shall help you to reach ideal capitalism, for equal tenure is the idealizing of capitalism from the point of view of small producers. At the same time we will prove to you its inadequacy and the necessity of passing to the cultivation of the land on a social basis1
Theres much in this rich passage to which I want to return in later posts. But for now Ill just suggest that the proletarians of 20thcentury communist regimes signally failed to prove the necessity of cultivating the land on a social basis (as opposed to mixed peasant economies of common and private tenure), and little now remains of their efforts on this front a point that I think needs more serious analysis than it typically gets from those on the left who still herald the virtues of collective production and the vices of private property. At the same time, profit-oriented private capitalist farming has been ecologically and socially disastrous, and it seems clear that it cant continue much longer.
Which is why I proclaim the return of the peasant in my book. Possibly I should have avoided the p word altogether in view of its heavy historical baggage. But ultimately the baggage must be confronted, whatever words we use. And this brings us to the third relevant aspect of peasant societies, namely their status ordering.
The classical question animating so much of peasant studies, especially its Marxist versions, is how peasantries differentiate into separate status groups or classes in circumstances of capitalist economic integration. But the most urgent agrarian question before us today is the reverse: how non-peasants might aggregate into unified peasantries in circumstances of capitalist economic disintegration. Im not suggesting there will be no class or status differentiation among future peasantries. On the contrary, Im anxious to identify ways to prevent it and a good deal of Parts III and IV of my book is devoted to that task, as Ill outline in later posts. But here, Ill just reiterate a simpler point made on page 95 of my book which is a necessary prior assumption for those posts: some people do actually want to be peasants, and in the future their numbers are likely to increase.
See the article here:
