S&S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press

Engels on Agriculture
Author(s): Theodor Bergmann
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 62, No. 1, Friedrich Engels: A Critical Centenary Appreciation
(Spring, 1998), pp. 145-162
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40403693 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 10:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science &Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Science& SocietyVol. 62, No. 1, Spring 1998, 145-162

/'

Engels on Agriculture

THEODOR BERGMANN

MARXAND ENGELSdealtwiththebasicproblemsof
theagricultural sectorin theirwritings. A certaindivisionof
laborbetweenthetwoinseparable thinkers canbe discerned,
however.Marxdealtwith, among other agricultural issues,landrent,
theexhaustion ofsoilandmanbycapitalist farming, therelationship
betweenmanand nature,thecausesofthedifferent pace ofdevel-
of in as
opment productivityagriculture opposed industry, to thein-
of
terdependence farming and handicrafts inIndia (the Asiaticmode
ofproduction), thecomplacency of the French peasantry their
and
abstentionfrompolitics(see Bergmann, 1976,21-24),theprospects
forcooperation in theRussianvillage(thecontroversial issueofthe
and
"mir"), the of
penetration farming.
capitalist Engels, theother
on
hand,worked on the historicalforms of land ownership, on peasant
movements andtheirspecificcharacteristics, on a classanalysisofthe
Germancountryside, and on perspectives forthesmallholders.
WhatwereEngels'findings in histime?How did he influence
movement?
thesocialist What is the importance ofhiswritings inour
time?Whatsurvives ofthiswork?

Landownership
One ofthebasicissuesofagricultureatall times,and one thatis
factorin history,
alsoa significant is thequestionoflandownership.
Engelsdealtwiththisextensively in his historicalpaper Die Mark
(MEW19,1882,315-330).He foundthat,inearlierstagesofhistory,
landwasmainlyusedand ownedas commonproperty ofa tribeor
145

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
146 SCIENCE& SOCIETY

village; thus private landownership, though dominant in modem

capitalistsocieties, was not eternal. It was a transitoryform,useful and
necessary in certain phases of technical development, but later again
to be replaced by new forms ofjoint disposition and use of land. In
the introduction to Die Mark,Engels says:

In a countrylike Germany,wheremore thanhalfof thepopulationderives

itslivelihoodfromland cultivation, itis necessarythatthe socialistworkers
and fromthemthe peasantsget to knowhowpresent-day landed property,
large as well as small,originated;necessarythatthe present-day miseryof
day laborersand the slaveryof indebtednessof the smallholdersbe con-
frontedwiththe old common propertyof all freemen . . . whatin olden
timeswas in realitya "fatherland," an inheritedfreepropertyin land. . . .
Two facts,arisenlike naturalgrowth,dominatethe earliesthistoryof all or
at leastmostpeoples: structureofthenationaccordingto affinity, and com-
mon ownershipof land. So itwas also withthe Germans.(317.)

On the basic issue of land ownership, Engels finds a dialectical de-

velopment: In an earlier stage "primitive"common ownership deter-
mined the old village structure;but thisformcould not integrate the
new inventions of science and technology, of agricultural chemistry,
plant and animal nutrition,and modern farm machinery. Thus, the
commons had to be divided and privatized. Private propertyin land
then has to be replaced in a third stage: "this negation of capitalist
production does not re-establish private property, but individual
property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era: the
cooperation and the common ownership of the earth and of the
means of production produced by labor itself" (Marx, Capital',MEW
23, 791). Observing the historical development from early common
ownership to privatization in modern capitalist society, Engels con-
cludes that in a later stage common ownership on a higher level -
that of modern technology - will be called for.
Already in the PrinciplesofCommunism(MEW 4, 1847, 361-380)
Engels demands "gradual expropriation of landowners . . . partly
through competition of state industry,partlydirectlythrough com-
pensation in the form of bonds . . . bringing new lands into cultiva-
tion and improvement of land already under cultivation" (373). 1

1 It is not accidental thatin the same articleEngels formulatesdemands forimprovedand

healthyhousing forthe urban population.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ENGELS ON AGRICULTURE 147

form,in theCommu-
modified
Theseideasarerepeated,in partially
(MEW 4, 1848,459-493) and in theDemandsoftheCom-
nistManifesto
munistPartyin Germany(MEW 5, 1848, 3-5).
The DutchruralsociologistE. W. Hofstee(1972) reachesthe
sameconclusion; he seesprivate property andprivate decisionsabout
landuse as obsoletein highly industrialized and denselypopulated
countries, and as an obstacleto generaldevelopment, spatialplan-
and
ning meaningful use of this scarce resource.In an agrariansoci-
etyradical agrarianreform is a socioeconomic and politicalnecessity
(see below). But evenin an industrial economytheissueofland-
ownership remainsimportant, foradditionalreasons:whiletheland
hunger of the peasantryis less important, thenon-agricultural use
ofthelandcallsforpublicownership and planneddecisionsregard-
ingitsuse.Thisnecessity liesbehindthedemandsoflandreformers
likeAdolfDamaschke,whowantedto stopland speculationin the
vicinityofpopulationconcentrations. In a periodofrapidurbaniza-
tionthisaspectoflandreform becomesincreasingly important.
The questionwhether a directtransition from"primitive" com-
monlandownership tomoderncommonlanduse isfeasibleturned
up again in Tanzania, whenJuliusNyererein thelate 1960siniti-
atedtheformation ofUjamaavillages.The basicreasonwastosettle
semi-nomadic agriculturalists invillages,whereschools,healthcare,
etc.wouldbe providedand taxescollected.This idea was misun-
derstoodbybothMarxists andanti-Marxists inEuropeas an attempt
at collectivization.

PeasantMovements

Severalaspectsofpeasanthistory weredealtwithbyEngelsin
his ThePeasantWarin Germany (MEW 7, 1850,327-413): A class
analysisoftheGermancountryside, thequestionofhistorical matu-
rityofthe the
peasantry, special features ofpeasantmovements, the
roleofthepeasantry and therelationship
in history, betweenrevo-
lutionaryleadersand themasses.In theintroduction, Engelsrefers
thatshowsup almosteverywhere
to"theactualdebility [in1850]after
twoyearsoffighting." Therefore "itis therighttime... to produce
againbeforetheGermannationtheclumsy, butforcefuland tena-
ciousfiguresofthegreatpeasantwar.. . . EventheGermannation
tradition"
has itsrevolutionary (329).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
148 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

Engelsanalyzesthehistorical and socioeconomic situation and

conditions ofthepeasantry at theturnofthe16thcentury in there-
gionsofGermanlanguage,and thepoliticaland military struggles
betweenthepeasantsandthepowersthatwere.Herehe candescribe
thesocialforcesmuchmoreprecisely and in moredetailthanwas
possible in theManifesto. Around the year1500,theGermanpeas-
antrywasthelowliest "greatexploitedmassofthenation"(339),but
wasnevertheless "difficulttoleadtoinsurrection" (340). Thiswasdue
to thepeasants'fragmentation, continuedsubmission, extremeex-
limitation
ploitation, tolocal horizons,and narrow-mindedness. Super-
peasantwarsat thattimewerereligious
ficially, wars,butunderthe
surfaceclassinterests can be discerned;thesewarsare,thus,class
struggles.
In TheEighteenth Brumaire (MEW,1852,111-207)Marxspeaks
verydifferentlyaboutthepeasants;he describes themas amorphous,
likepotatoesin a bag.Thishasbeenquotedtimeandagainas proof
thatMarxism andMarxists generally arehostiletowards thepeasantry.
Butin reality thereis no contradiction to Engels'analysis:thetwo
close friendswerewriting aboutdifferent peasantsand different
historicalperiods,and we shouldread theirwritings in historical
context.MarxanalyzedtheFrenchsmallholder peasantry of 1850,
contented aftera successful agrarian reform.These peasantslacked
classconsciousness; theydid nothavea nationwide politicalorgani-
zation,onlylocalconnections. Theyalsocompetedagainsteachother
forownership ofland,whichwaslimitedin supplyand therefore a
limitingfactor for their work and livingstandards. They were there-
forea classinthemselves, butnotforthemselves. Engels,on theother
hand,dealtwiththeGermanpeasantry of the 16thcentury - op-
pressed,exploitedwithoutlimit(forcedto give"unmeasured ser-
vices"),dependent on their feudal landlords;they were compelled
tofight fortheirliberation. Buttheydidthisunderreligious slogans
andslogansofnaturalrights, whichappeardirectedtowards thepast.
Engelsrecognizestherevolutionary potentialin theirsocioeco-
nomicconditions, butat thesametimeseesthelimitsoftheirpower
thatresultfromhistorical "immaturity," and fromthespecifictraits
ofpeasant(agrarian)movements. Revolutionarypeasantleadershave
torecognizetheserealities andadaptthemselves tothespecific con-
ditionsofpeasantstruggles.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ENGELSON AGRICULTURE 149

The judgement of Marx had been formulated earlier by Engels

in his article, "Status Quo in Germany" (MEW 4, 1847, 40-57):

The peasants- we subsumeunder thistermthe smallagriculturalists, the

tenantsor landownersonly,excludingthedaylaborersand permanentfarm
laborers- the peasants forma class similarlyin destitutionto the petite
bourgeois,fromwhombythewaytheyare distinguishedto theiradvantage
bytheirgreatercourage.On theotherhand theyare entirelyunable to take
anyhistoricalinitiative.(48.)

These lines represent the close exchange of views and the intense
collaboration between Marx and Engels. And they hint at the long-
standing problem of peasant wars and theirleadership, which mostly
has to be provided by outsiders. The same position is formulated in
Revolutionand Counter-Revolution
in Germany(MEW 8, 1851-52, 3-108).
Engelsexpectsthethreelowerclassestojoin therevolution;however,
at thesametimeitis quiteas evident,
and equallyborneoutbythehistory
ofall moderncountries,thattheagriculturalpopulation,in consequence
overa greatspace,and ofthedifficulty
ofitsdispersion ofbringing about
an agreement amonganyconsiderable portionofit,nevercan attempt a
successful
independent movement; theyrequiretheinitiatoryimpulseof
themoreconcentrated, moreenlightened, moreeasilymovedpeopleofthe
towns.(12.)2

the mostlyconservative,
Engels discussesextensively sometimes
reactionary,attitudeof the French peasantry.During his traveling
"fromParisto Berne" (MEW 5, 463-480), he had close contactswith
peasants,enjoyedand praisedtheirhospitality,
and mostlikelytalked
withthemat length:

Butpeasantremainspeasant,and thelivingconditions ofpeasantsdo not

ceasefora momenttoshowtheirinfluence. In spiteofall privatevirtues
of
theFrenchpeasant,inspiteofhishigherlivingstandard. . . thepeasantin
France- as in Germany- is thebarbarin themidstofcivilization. The

2 Wherean accepted Englishversionof Engels' writingswas available,thisversionhas been

ofCommunism
used in the quotations:Principles (MonthlyReviewPress,New York,1952);
Revolution in Germany
and Counter-Revolution (ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse, Beijing,
1977); ThePeasantQuestioninFranceand Germany, in Marx and Engels,Selected Works,one
volume(Lawrence& Wishart,
London,1967).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
150 SCIENCE& SOCIETY

isolationof the peasant to a remotevillagewitha smallpopulation,which

changeswiththegenerationsonly,thehard,boringwork,whichbindshim
to the soil more thanall serfdomand whichremainsthe same fromfather
and uniformity
to son, thestability ofall livingconditions,thelimitationin
whichthefamilyforhimbecomes the mostimportant,mostdecisivesocial
relationship- all thatreduces the peasant's horizon to the mostnarrow
bordersthatare possiblein modernsociety.The greathistoricalmovements
bypasshim,drawhimwiththemfromtimeto time,withouthimbecoming
aware of the natureof the movingforce,of itsorigin,of itsgoal. (471.)

But Engels goes on to describe the political attitude of the French

peasantry, which is occasionally combative, at other instances con-
servative,antirevolutionary,all according to the measure of satisfac-
tion of their wishes and demands:

In the firstFrenchrevolution,the peasantsacted as revolutionariesjust as

long as thiswas demanded by their closest,most palpable privateinterest,
untilthe ownershiptitleto the land theycultivatedhithertoin a feudalre-
lationshipand theremovalofforeignarmiesfromtheirregionwassecured.
This achieved,theyturnedwithall the rage of blindgreedinessagainstthe
movementin thebig cities,whichtheydid notunderstand,and particularly
againstthe movementin Paris. {Ibid.,472.)

This attitude changed in 1815:

When theBourbonsreturnedin 1815,when theexpelled aristocracy again

claimeditsproperty lostin therevolution,thepeasantsfelttheirentirerevo-
lutionaryconquest threatened.Hence theirhatredagainstthe rule of the
Bourbons,theirjubilation when the revolutionofJulyreturnedthe secu-
rityofpropertyand theTricolorto them.AftertheJulyrevolution,thepar-
ticipationofthepeasantsin thegeneralinterestsofthecountryceased again.
Their demands were satisfied,theirpropertyno longerthreatened.{Ibid.,
472.)

However, the struggle over the peasant surplus product has no end.
If the peasant has escaped the chains of feudalism, he is not at all
economically independent. The state asks for its share; likewise the
bourgeoisie:

The bourgeoisimmediatelybegan to exploittheirruralallies willall their

might.. . . But the pressureexertedbybig capitalon the peasantremained

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ENGELSON AGRICULTURE 151

forhima privaterelationship
onlybetweenhimselfand hiscreditors;he
did notsee thatthesedevelopedmoregenerallyintoa classrelationship
betweentheclassofthebigcapitalists
and theclassofthesmalllandown-
ers.{Ibid.,473.)

Thus,Engelssees the temporarily revolutionary attitudeof the peas-

antry in its historicalcontextand as their reaction against attacks
he
againsttheiractualneeds; does notidealizethepeasantryand does
notelevateitto therevolutionary subjectperse,forall timesand under
all social conditions.
Rural sociologistsof our time have described the dilemma of
politicalrepresentationof landowningpeasants in a similarwayas
did Engelsand Marx,thoughperhapsusingmorepolitewords.Thus
Vincienne (1972) writes:

Sincetheprofessional
and thefamiliar sphereare almostor entirely
con-
are
peasantholdings spatialneighbors,
gruent, but withoutrealeconomic
Allplayan identical
interdependence. role,andthelogicoftheirworkmakes
notallies.(71.)
themcompetitors,

In hisgeneralizationsconcerningthe politicalrole of the peasantry,

the political scientistHuntington(1971, 298-299) even surpasses
Engels.In the strugglebetweenlandlordand peasant,propertyand
propertysystemsare put into question. Therefore,tensionsin the
villageare "potentiallymuch more revolutionary than in the town,"
is
where the struggle fought rather about quantitativedistribution
of income and revenue.In the countrysideinevitablythe character
of remunerationsand
of thesocial systemitself,not the distribution
profit,is called into question.

Peasant Leader
TheRole oftheRevolutionary

In additionto theclassanalysisoftheGermanpeasantsat the

timeof thepeasantwar,thebookletbyEngelstakesup a second
important issue:therole ofThomasMüntzer.Müntzerwantsthe
revolution;butin hisstrategyand programhe has to adaptto the
peasantsunderhisleadership. Thus,he has toveilhisobjectives
in
religiousforms,termsand words.Withhisconsciousness and pro-
gramhe is farahead ofhisclass,and fortheformation ofhisparty

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
152 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

he is able to recruit"a smallminority onlyof theinsurgent mass"

(358) . Müntzer's dilemma isdescribed byEngels: "The worst that can
occurto theleaderofan extremeparty is ifhe is forced to take over
thegovernment in a periodwhenthemovement is notyetmature
forthecontroloftheclasshe represents, and fortheimplementa-
tionof themeasureswhichthegovernment of thatclasscallsfor"
(400-401).Müntzerrecognized hisdilemma,and triedtosolveitby
"extension and organization ofthemovement" (402).
Engels' interpretation of Müntzer's thoughtsand activities is
criticized bysome other researchers dealing with Müntzer. Steinmetz
(1976) intimates thatEngelsunderestimated thereligiouscompo-
nent;he findstheological rootsinMüntzer's thinking, thoughthese
are entirely different fromthoseofMartinLuther:"Prophets ofthe
Old Testament, and
Taborites middle-ages mysticism, heretical ideas
of themiddleage and humanist literature and thepublications of
thereformation movement . . . determined him,and theappropria-
tionand discussion takesplaceunderthesignofactivity andwithout
inclination toa quietistviewof God and self reflection" (99). Butthese
rootsfinally setMüntzer on theroadtorevolution, ininteraction with
thesocialstruggles ofhistime.Steinmetz explains: "Firstthe devel-
opmentofMüntzer's teachings inconnection withtheclassstruggle
of1521-1525givesa reliablepicture; itisonlythesocialpracticethat
makesan earlyformofclassideology outofelements oftheology and
sectarianideology"(98).
It is notaccidentalthatEngelswroteaboutthepeasantwarand
itsend - thedefeatoftheinsurgent peasants- precisely in 1850,
and thathe analyzedMüntzer's roleas a revolutionary ahead ofhis
timeand hisclass.Thereisbotha generaland a personalreasonfor
this.The generalreasonis emphasizedbyCarver(1989):
He hadonemajorsource. . . andanover-riding purpose
political intaking
on thesubject.Hisproject
wastopersuade hisaudienceofdemocrats at
homeinGermany andabroadintheemigré community thatthey stillhad
a missioninGerman politics, actioncouldbe expected
thatmasspolitical
todevelop inthetowns
andcountryside, andthatinthemodern industrial
worldan international
perspective wasa necessity.
onpolitics (215.)
revolution
The personalreasonwasthataftertheabortive of1848-49
Marxand Engelsfeltthemselvestobe ina positionsimilartothatof
Müntzer.Nowtheyhadtorethink andactivities.
theirposition Slowly,

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ENGELS ON AGRICULTURE 153

theyretiredfromdayto dayorganizational workand devotedtheir

energies and time to theelaboration of their theories.Butwhenin
thelastquarterofthe19thcentury thesocialist movement tooka new
turn,Engelswasagainreadyto offerexperienceand knowledge to
themanysocialists seeking his advice.
In thePeasantWarwe findalreadythebeginnings ofa socialist
strategyforthepeasantry, an issuethatistakenup againbyEngelsin
1894(see below). Hisclassanalysis ofthepeasantry hastobe readin
a doublehistoricalcontext. Thesepeasantslivedunderfeudalism and
extreme particularism - if
(Kleinstaaterei it is atall to
permitted speak
ofstatesin thatperiodofGermanhistory) . The analysisgrewoutof
a timewhentherevolutionary waveebbedawayin centraland west-
ernEuropeaftera defeatof thebourgeoisrevolution. Engelsthe
revolutionary soughtand foundnewhope in theemerging working
classand itsgrowing classconsciousness.
Classanalysis ofthepeasantry and theorganization ofagrarian
movements haveremainedcontinuous concernsforrevolutionaries
duringthewholeof the20thcentury, and willremainso forlarge
-
partsoftheworldevenin the21st in civilwar,beforeand during
an agrarian reformandduringthetransformation oftheagricultural
sectoraftertherevolution as well.If Marxistrevolutionaries were
reallyhostiletowards the
thepeasantry, great revolutionsof the20th
century, all strongly
supported bypeasantmasses,wouldneverhave
succeeded.

forthePeasantry
Abouta SocialistStrategy

Marxand Engelswerefrequently askedabouttheiropinionson

matters socialist
ofactualdebatein theinternational movement; the
monolithiceternaltruth "Marxism-Leninism"
ofStalin's had notyet
beeninvented. In 1894Engelsexpressedhisviewsand principlesin
thedebatebetweenFrenchand Germansocialists. The differences
inthepeasantprograms ofthefraternal weretobe sortedout.
parties
TheFrenchcomrades weremorebenevolent towards thesmallholders,
lessdogmatic,and gavethema longerspelloflifeand offered sup-
port for survival.
their
Engelsexpressedhispositionin"ThePeasantProbleminFrance
andGermany" (MEW22,1894,483-505), inwhichhe alsodealtwith
theproblemofpeasantclassconsciousness. Theirdemarcation in

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
154 SCIENCE& SOCIETY

relationto othersociallayersin thevillageis moredifficult

in real-
itythan in theory.
Engels defined the smallholder in thefollowing
words:

Bysmallpeasantwe mean heretheowneror tenant- particularly the

former - on a patchoflandno bigger, as a rule,thanhe orhisfamilycan
till,and no smallerthancansustainthefamily. Thissmallpeasant,justlike
thesmallhandicraftsman, is thereforea toiler,whodiffersfromthemod-
ernproletarian in thathe stillpossesseshisinstruments oflabor;hencea
survivalofa pastmodeofproduction.

From his ancestorsthe peasant is distinguishedbybeing freefrom

feudalburdens;byownershipof the land; bythe loss ofhis share of
the emolumentsof the formercommon Mark (dissolutionof the
commons);finally,byfar-reaching integrationintoand dependence
on a marketeconomy,dominatedby capitalists- contraryto the
earliernaturaland moral economy:

ButiftheMarkemoluments represented one ofthebasicconditionsofhis

his
existence, industrialsideline was another. And thus thepeasantsinks
everlower.Taxes,cropfailures, ofinheritance
divisions drive
andlitigations
one peasantafteranotherto theusurer;theindebtedness becomesmore
and moregeneralandsteadily increasesinamountineachcase- inbrief,
oursmallpeasant,likeevery othersurvivalofa pastmodeofproduction, is
doomed,
hopelessly he is a futureproletarian.(626.)

Engelsrecognizesin theworkingsmallholder,who employsonly

hisfamilymembersbutdoes notexploitwagelaborers,a socialneigh-
bor ofthefactory worker,who is drivenintotheindustrialproletariat
bythe competitionofthe overseasgrainproducer,thedevelopment
ofindustryand thestructural change oftheagriculturalsector.How-
ever,due to his close proximity to the big landlordin the village-
we
today might add: due to the client-likerelationshipwithhim -
and thedifficultiesofself-organization, hisclassconsciousnessdevel-
ops onlyslowly.According to his socioeconomic conditionthisfu-
tureproletarianoughtto "lendan open ear to socialistpropaganda";
but the opposite is the reality:

The biglandowners and smallpeasantsalikesee ruinstaringthemin the

face.Andsincetheyarebothownersoflandandcountry folk,thebigland-

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ENGELSON AGRICULTURE 155

ownersassume the role of championsof the smallpeasants,and the small

peasantsbyand large accept themas such. (624.)

As forthe actual policy,Engels then suggests,when the socialists take

power they would not accelerate "the inevitable ruin of the small-
holder." The peasant would not be expropriated by force, as he was
by the big landlords. Instead, the task of socialists "consists, in the
firstplace, in effectinga transitionof his private enterprise and pri-
vate possession to cooperative ones, not forciblybut by dint of ex-
ample and the profferof social assistance forthispurpose" (634-635) .
Engels is convinced that it would be possible to persuade the
smallholders of the advantages of cooperative large-scale farming.At
the same time he asks for much patience in this process of voluntary
cooperativization,during which the smallholders willgrasp and adapt
themselves to their new social status: "We of course are decidedly on
the side of the small peasants; we shall do everythingat all permis-
sible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitatehis transitionto the
co-operative, should he decide to do so, and even make it possible
forhim to remain on his small holding fora protractedlength of time
to thinkthe matterover, should he stillbe unable to bring himselfto
this decision" (636). It would, however, be wrong

to make promisesthateven onlycreate the impressionthatwe intend to

preservethesmallholdingspermanently. . . . On thecontrary,itis theduty
of our Partyto make clear to the peasantsagain and again thattheirposi-
tionis absolutelyhopelessas long as capitalismholdssway. . . thatcapitalist
large-scaleproductionis absolutelysureto runovertheirantiquatedsystem
of productionas a trainrunsovera pushcart.(636-637.)

It appears thatEngels had a deep understanding of the socio-psycho-

logical situation of the smallholders, as also of the economic difficul-
ties of transformationof the agricultural sector. It was therefore his
suggestion that this transformationbe given a significantamount of
time, following a revolution.

Debatein Germany
TheAgrarian

The programof theSocialDemocraticPartyforthepeasantry

arouseda longandthoroughdebateamongGerman socialists.
Kautsky
(1902) saw the of
process structural
changein the sec-
agricultural

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
156 SCIENCE äf SOCIETY

toras a shortone. Somewhat later,he wasmorecautious:"Weenvis-

age neither theruin of the smallholding, nordo we envisageat the
sametimetheruinofthelargeholdinginagriculture duringtherule
ofthecapitalist modeofproduction" (Kautsky, 1902-3,688).
EduardDavid (1903), on theotherhand,could notgraspthe
structural changeat all. He remainedconvincedof theenduring
superiority - evenin microeconomic terms- of theagricultural
smallholding due to theorganicprocessofproduction, dependent
on natureand physiology. Fromthishe concluded:"Driving backof
thelargeholdingsbythesmallholding - thatis thewayofagricul-
turaldevelopment, whichisprovedin themostclearwaybytheGer-
manfarmstatistics" (36).
In a latereditionofthesamebook (1922) Davidexpressedthe
opinionthatmechanization offarmworkwouldbe verydifficult.
Bernstein, in hisfamousbook,inwhichhe offered a newviewofhis
revised socialism(1899),dealsonlybriefly withtheagrarian question,
butreachesthesameconclusionas David:"After all therecanbe no
doubtthatinthewholeofwestern Europeas alsointheeasternstates
oftheUSAthesmalland medium-size holdingin agriculture makes
progress, whilethelargeor thegiantfarmrecedes."
Againstthe viewsof Bernstein,David and otherrevisionists,
Rautsky's positionwasmorefar-sighted. However, he originallyen-
visaged a fastpace of structural change and did not recognize the
transitory formsofthisprocess(part-time farms,worker-peasants)
andtheconnection oftheseforms andtheclassconsciousness ofthis
part of the rural population.Furthermore, he was fixated too much
on thesomewhat forcedinterpretation ofofficialstatistics, cate-
which
gorizedfarmholdingsbyacreageonly,anddidnotrealizethatlarge-
scalecapitalist production in agriculture is notnecessarily boundto
but
largeacreage, depends also or
upon capitalization intensity of
production perunit ofland.
Engels'prediction thattheexistence ofthesmallholder isthreat-
enedbycapitalism isbasically right, but isvalidin the long runonly.
The declineofsmall-scale farming is a drawn-out processin several
formsand stages.Since the thresholdof "viability of the peasant
holding"risescontinually, viablefull-time holdings arechanging into
part-time holdings and these again into of
holdings worker-peasants
(the mainsourceof incomebeingoffthefarm).Niehaus(1974)
speaksabouta "standing wave."Bohn (1980) speaksofthedivided

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ENGELSON AGRICULTURE 157

world of the worker-peasant: a work environment in the factorywith

other workers,coupled witha living environment in the village with
farmers.The result is a complicated process of consciousness and a
complex mix of interestsof the worker-peasant with those of large
landowning farmersin the living environment.
Lenin's analysis of class situation, class interests,and class con-
sciousness of smallholders before the revolution (1905) follows the
lines laid down by Engels:

The peasantrycomprisesa massofsemi-proletarian besidespettybourgeois

elements.This circumstancemakes even the peasantryunstable. ... At
presentthe peasantryis not so much interestedin the unconditionalpro-
tectionof privateproperty, ratherin the expropriationof the land ofland-
lords,one of the main formsof thisprivateproperty.Withoutbecoming
socialist,not givingup itspetty-bourgeois position,the peasantryis able to
become the completeand mostradical followerof the democraticrevolu-
tion. ("Two Tactics . . .", LW 9, 88.)

PoliciesToday:
SocialistAgricultural
The Contemporaneity ofEngels

One hundredyearsafterEngels'death,agrarianproblemshave
roleinsocialist
a different strategies.
Capitalism haschangeditsout-
lookand methods, thoughnotitsbasiccharacter. Andthenegative
experience of the first
large-scaleexperiment in the USSR and in
easternEuropehas tobe analyzed.
The accelerated,forcedcollectivization,
finallyimplemented by
violence,of25 millionindividualsmallholders in Russiain theyears
1929-1933and ofmanymoremillionsin thePeoplesRepublicof
Chinain 1956-1958,weredefinitely atvariancewiththewiseadvice
offeredbyEngels, grant peasantsmuchtimefortheirsocio-
to the
psychologicaladaptationtoa newsociety, newproduction relations,
and newproductive forces.Leadersofparty and revolution,nowfar
distantfromthegrassroots,actedin an entirely voluntaristic
way,
forcedthepace,ignoredtheideasand conditions ofthepeasantry,
and thusalienateditfromtherevolution, whichhadbeensuccessful
due
largely toitsactive
support. Hereby theidentification
also ofthe
peasantswith the new and
institutions their activities
waslargelyde-
stroyed,withoutwhichthecollectivefarms(or the peoples com-
munes)could notfunction The criticsof thisoverhasty
effectively.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

transformation ofagriculture (Bukharin in theUSSR,Liu Shaoqiin

China, Edvard in
Kardelj Yugoslavia) showed a moreintimate under-
standing oftheneedsofthepeasantry, kept and a closer contact with
them.3
In manycapitalist developingcountriesthetimehas comefor
an agrarianrevolution, a liberation ofthepeasantry fromthefetters
offeudalism. Herepeasantsarea potentially revolutionary force(or
class),evenifreligion, fundamentalism, illiteracy, casteism,andnew
nationalism may still
bar them from becoming a classfor themselves.
In manydevelopingcountries theagrarianmovements, theirobjec-
tivesand tacticsofthestruggles and thesocialrelationships in the
villagehaveto be analyzed,as also thenewmethodsofglobalized
exploitation andtransfer ofthesurplus, theeffects oftechnical mod-
ernization andrising production forthe ultimate the
producers, high-
technology spoilingoftheearth,etc.
In thehighlyindustrialized economiestheforcespushingand
pulling smallholders out of agriculture lead to socialproblemsin
timesof economiccrisisonly.In timesofboom and expansionof
secondary and tertiary sectors, smallholders and theirchildren leave
agriculture andfindalternative employment. Theybecomeproletar-
ians,butareno longerpauperized, as Marxdescribedthefateofthe
Irishpeasantsin 1850.Thisexodusfromagriculture, notnecessarily
fromthevillage,is formally voluntary perceivedas suchbythe
and
smallholders, butinfactmadecompulsory byeconomicand techni-
cal development.
Structural changecausessocialdifferentiation and polarization
in thevillage,however alleviatedbytheincreasing value oftheland
ownedbythedeparting smallholders. In thisexodusthemainten-
dency is downward social mobility. Table 1 givesthefigures concern-
ing social differentiation and concentration of land in the territory
of theformer FederalRepublicofGermany, circa1989.The ideol-
ogyofthesemi-official farmers unionand thehopeofmanyfarmers
and peasants,however, isupwardmobility; thiscausesidentification
withthebig"viable"farmers. Thiscontradiction betweenwishesand
reality causesanomie;"relative pauperism"(in relationtotherefer-
ence group;Hofstee,1968) makestheupperlayerofmedium-sized

3 For earlycriticismof forcedcollectivization,see Mieszczankowski,1962-63; Bukharin,

1973; Golkov, 1974;Jia Wenlin,1985; and Bergmann,1989.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ENGELS ON AGRICULTURE 159

£ -S
il
Ö ha
g - « °î«
Ci CO CM O (M

« t
^ 4-1 ,-i CO CM CM

c
S
O
'S
g 00 00 CO O

Oh o;
bo
g ^
2 ^
ç£j CM CD CM O
$ ^ ^ -h O

U
<D
e

.g ^ »A ^. <« °. 9
c^ CO O b CO ^
X ^ io e» co CO
U I I I I
^

g in a' co
Oí od r^ co o

2
"o
X
Sd
•S fg iO CM CO O
*O (j) CO CM ^f O
"o ^ ^

3
io r^ 1-j cm
2? CO r-H*00 CO
^ O^ IO ^ CM CM
^ CM CM m
O
O
O
O
O 6 CO O^ O^ >~H
u ^
IO r-î CM CO i-H
.2
'G
to
o
i- i cm i- « m
m co co Tf <£
o i- i Oí

?- i

a ç
(Zi «o

G £ ¿ ü

CL S u o - 3
h á £^ < £

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160 SCIENCEàf SOCIETY

farmers, whosee thebigfarmers as theirreference group,suscep-

tibletoright-wing radicalismandfascism, as shownbyHeberle(1963)
forSchleswig-Holstein, byNooij (1969) fortheNetherlands, and by
Loomisand Beegle (1946) fortheruralareasofGermany.
Winningovertheworking peasants,developingprograms for
theirliberation and formulation ofsocialistagricultural policiesal-
waysremaincurrenttasksforthesocialist movement everywhere.
Generalizations, though necessaryand sometimes useful,implythe
of
danger simplification; one who generalizes sometimes ignores
essentialdetailsthatareimportant forthelivelihoodofpeople.The
worldismultipolar, andwewitness different phasesofdevelopment,
notonlydifferent naturalconditions and societaltraditions.There-
the of
fore, problems agriculture are multifarious, as are also the
solutions.Foreach region,foreach economy, an adequateanalysis
and a specifictherapy
is necessary mustbe elaborated.The fieldof
researchiswidened.The knowledge and methodsofEngelsareuse-
ful.Butitisimpossible tocopythemforanycountry underchanged
and changingconditions. Theycan,however, offer hintsand expla-
nationsforfailures and errorsin socialistcountries, can stimu-
and
latenon-dogmatic thinkingaboutsocialist forthepeasantry
strategies
in ourtime.

ComparativeInternational Policies
Agricultural
Mohenheim
Universität
Germany
Stuttgart,

REFERENCES

1996. Bonn.
derBundesregierung.
Agrarbericht
Bergmann, byMarxund Engels- und heute."
Theodor.1968."Die Agrarfrage,
derpolitischen
eds.,Kritik
Pp. 175-194inWalterEuchnerand AlfredSchmidt,
heute- 100Jahre"Kapital".Frankfurt/M:
Oekonomie Wien.
of the Peasantry."
Changesand PoliticalActivities
. 1976. "Structural
Saarbrücken.
. 1982."VonderVerfemung und Liquidierungzur Rehabilitierung:Liu
derpolitischen
Shaoqi'sSchicksalimKontext Entwicklung Chinas."Pp. 305-
334 in TheodorBergmann, UlrichMenzeland UrsulaMenzel-Fischer, eds.,
Liu Shaoqi:Ausgewählte
Schriften I, II. Stuttgart.
und Materialen,
. 1989."DieKommunisten nachderRevolution:
unddieAgrarfrage Vergleich
LiuShaoqiundKardelj."Pp.278-293inTheodor
derKonzeptevonBucharin,

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ENGELSON AGRICULTURE 161

derParte?: NikolaiBucharin,
Bergmannand GertShafer,eds., "Liebling Theoretiker
undPraktikerdesSozialismus.
Hamburg.
desSozialismusund dieAufgabender
Bernstein,Eduard. 1899. Die Voraussetzungen
Sozialdemokratie.
Stuttgart.
Wandelund gesellschaftliche
Bohn, Eckart.1980. Wirtschaftsstruktureller Orientierung.
Stuttgart.
Boukharine,Nikolai,et.al. 1973.La question enURSS(1924-1929).Paris.
paysanne
Carver,Terrei.1989.Friedrich His and
Engels: Life Thought. Macmillan.
Basingstoke:
David,Eduard.1922(1903). Sozialismus undLandwirtschaft.
Berlin,Leipzig.
1847."DerStatusQuo in Deutschland."
Engels,Friedrich. MEW4, 40-57.Berlin:
DietzVerlag.
MEW 4, 361-380.
desKommunismus.
. 1847. Grundsätze
ParteiDeutschlands."
derKommunistischen
. 1848."Forderungen MEW5,3-5.
Partei.MEW 4, 459-493.
. 1848. ManifestderKommunistischen
. 1848."VonParisnachBern."MEW5, 463-480.
. 1850. Der deutsche MEW 7, 327-413.
Bauernkrieg
. 1851-52. Revolution in Deutschland.
und Konterrevolution MEW 8, 3-108.
. 1882.DieMark.MEW19,315-330.
inFrankreich
. 1894."DieBauernfrage undDeutschland."
MEW22,483-505.
Golikow,W. A., ed. 1974. W.I. LeninunddieKPdSUüberdiesozialistische
Umgestaltung
derLandwirtschaft.Berlin.
Heberle, R. 1963 (1933). Landbevölkerungund Nationalsozialismus.
Stuttgart.
zur Zukunft
Hofstee.E. W. 1968. "SoziologischeBetrachtungen des Familien-
24, 100-115. Stuttgart.
RedenundAbhandlungen,
betriebes."Hohenheimer
in DenselyPopulatedand Industrialized
. 1972."Land-Ownership Coun-
tries."SociologiaRuralis,XII: 1, 6-36.
S. P. 1971."TheChangetoChange:Modernization,
Huntington, Developmentand
Politics."Comparative 3:1 (April),283-322.
Politics,
JiaWenlin.1985."SomeProblemsConcerningtheImplementation of Lenin's
Principles ofAgricultural
Cooperation." Pp. 305-322in TheodorBergmann
and TakekazuB. Ogura,eds.,Cooperation in World
Agriculture.
Tokyo.
Karl.
Kautsky, 1902.Die Stuttgart.
Agrarfrage.
. 1902-03."Landwirtschaftund Sozialismus."NeueZeit,677-688,731-735,
745-758,781-794,804-819.
derSozialdemokratie
Lenin,V. I. 1971 (1905). ZweiTaktiken Revo-
in derdemokratischen
9, 1-130.Berlin:DietzVerlag.
W.I. Lenin,Werke,
lution.
Liu Shaoqi. 1982. Ausgewählte
Schriften I, II. Stuttgart.
und Materialen,
Marx,Karl.1852.Der18Brumaire MEW8, 111-207.Berlin:Dietz
desLouisBonaparte.
Verlag.
I. MEW23. Berlin:DietzVerlag.
. 1867.Das Kapital,
historii
M. 1962-63."Zarays
Mieszczankowski, rolnictwa
teoriiuspolecznienie (Out-
lineoftheHistoryoftheTheoryofCooperatization ofAgriculture)."
Pp.25-34
rolnej.Warszawa.
in Zagadneniaekonomiki
Landwirtschaft:
H. 1974."Sorgenkind
Niehaus, oderEndederBauern."
Verwandlung
Pp. 72-761in R. and
Löwenthal H. -P.Schwarz, Die
cds., zweite 25fahre
Republik:
Bundesrepublik.
Stuttgart.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

en radikalismeonderde boeren.The
desoriëntatie
Nooij, A. T. 1969. De boerenpartij:
Netherlands:
Meppel.
inderForschung
Max.1976."ThomasMüntzer
Steinmetz, Pp.93-
derGegenwart."
104 in Max Steinmetz,ed., Derdeutsche
Bauernkrieg und ThomasMüntzer.Leipzig.
desagriculteurs.
de mobilité
Vincienne,Monique. 1972. Du villageà la ville:le système
Paris: La Haye.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:57:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions