“Peasantry’ as an Economic Category Judith Ennew, Paul Hirst and Keith Tribe Introduetion ‘This paper is concemed withthe relationship of the category ‘peasant’ to Marxist ‘economic theory. In its general and untheoretical usage resonances and multiple meanings are an essential part of the tern and can be lived with. ‘The n i enceslas fed, after some difficulty, to the Frenchmen who sometimes block tical term signifying a distinct hhad no significa ‘category of economy is a different mat ‘Manuist theoretical writing on the count has generally meant either agcarian pet semifeudal tenant. Marx in the 18th Bonaire one another and atomised as a class by forms of propect and conditions of production dominated by capit uly (predon commercial capital), Independent petty producers in a capitalist impoverishment and desperate defence of their petty properties stemmed from the operation of the laws of c production. They can be in Mare’s discourse as a specific agrarian detachment of the pel a ters have begun tentatively m of economy and even in some ‘peasant mode of production’ should be added et concepts of modes currently in usc.t These developments have various sourecs, Firstly, there is the spectacular recent growth of the academic296 The Journal of Peasant Studies specialism of ‘peasant fined by the general and untheoretical category of ‘peas attempt to come to terms with forms of production and of economy that are nether capitalist nor, traditional conceptions of that term, feudal; forms which ia their divers ‘complexity predominate in countries subject to the world domination of capitalist production, countries i {a which forms of rural economy are subject me is paper is a response to these developments and it is an argument against them, this paper we of capitalism into non-ca ‘out by Kautsky and Lenin made no use of the cos form of economy. And this ins and untheoretial sense) were the crucial objects ofthis penetration, concept of ‘peasant mode of production? (P.M. pts to peuctiate the diffuse category ‘peasant? will distibuce 485 components to the social relations of distinct modes of production alzeady 5 discourse, The generality ofthe untheoretical usage of the of ‘peasantry’ asa distin practical importance ofthe object wh discourse, capitalist penetration in agr that ‘Marxism provide the basis from with this question today. A, Morais, Captain in Agr ‘This section of the paper is concerned with the constitution of the category ‘peasant’, and its place in an exposition of the structure of capitalist agrarian id the ‘Peasantry’ “Peasantry’ as an Economic Category 291 developme concepts deployed in as an object of study. The peasantry for Lenin and Kautsky wer the countryside, aut er a heterogeneous co ‘only be conceived as existing in js chat these relations ae i In order to identify in this in proletariat an extensive and careful analysis was neces: shifting forms of production and circulation in the rural areas, an anal ‘peasant? as an adequate categ classes which co1 rational economy, Particularly in the case of L producers that concerned him, but rather the form a differentiation of small producers, a proces: Marx’s thesis of the tendency of ca agriculture, where small enterprises either survived or advanced in the face of large ones. F he increase in productivity that Sombart believed 10 be crucial for capitalism (following from improved processes. and rational organisation) was argued to be absent in agricul 2, 1909: 75-78" Such arguments were advanced in Germany at the close of the nineteenth cen- tury in an attempt to deny that capitalist production, and in particular the account of it provided by Marx, had any relevance for agriculture, Kautsky298 The Jour of Peasant St: rejected such propositions vigorously [/ wtsky, 1899: 5 ad presente: task as follows: shes to study the agioria. question in a vxist fashion, then it is simply not sufcient to pose the oroblem as the are of small ente~ prises in agriculture; we must rather investigate all the aviations underlying the capitalist mode of production in agriculture. We must investigate if ‘and how capital dominates agriculture, transforms it renders old production and property forms unworkable, and leads to the constitution of new forms. [Kaushy, 1899 6) Lenin on the other hand was faced with a Populist conception of agricultural production which denied that capitalism could (or would) develop on this basis in Russia, Put simply, the Populist economists sought to identify a path of development ia Russia, which would enable the peasantry to be protected from the effocts of capitalism during the establishment of industrial production on a large scale. In particular, this generally took the form of an idcalisation of the commune as the basis of a future socialist organisation of the economy, whose possibility rested on the survival of peasant production. ‘The response of Lenin ‘was to argue that ‘peasant production’, far from being the ‘peoples’ production’ of the Populists, was already capitalist, and that capitalist relations were extend ing in the countryside at a fast pace. ‘The similarity of the arguments that Lenin and Kautsky advanced does not simply derive from their common objects of analysis, ie, the forms of agrarian social relations under conditions of the advance of capitalist production, The common source of their conceptual apparatus is the three volumes of Capital, and in particular both Lenin and Kautsky attempt to develop and extend the ‘unevenly theorised sections of Vol. 111 on the conditions of capitalist agriculture. ‘Two categories are central to the forms of analysis advanced; the notion of the division of labour and the notion of the market, While these are of course related, cach writer develops a different treatment of these terms, and reservations of @ different order can therefore be made concerning the respective conceptual usage of Lenin and Kautsky. For Lenin, the concept of the division of labou: dynamic of capitalist development is formulated F commodity economy is the soc dustry separates from the raw mat these subdivides into small varieties and subvarieties which produce if odities, and exchange them for the product the development of commodity economy leads! bet of separate and independent branches of industry; to transform into a special branch of industry the making not only of each separate product, but even of each separate part of the product—and not only the making of a product, but even the separate operations of preparing the product for consumption. ted ofa mass of homogeneous economic primitive village communities, he means by which the “Beasantry’ as an Economie Category 299 1d each such unit engaged in all forms of economic i i 0 their final reparatc 3. Under commodity produ yerogencous ‘conomie units come into being, the number of separate branches of economy inerenses, umber of economic units performing one and the same function i owt i the ome market economy is contrasted along an axis of task of commodity economy. This process takes agricultural production along. with it, converting subsisten ‘commodity production, As the opening statement of Chapter 1 market is a category of commodity economy, and commodity economy is capitalist economy, It is only under the conditions of the lattcr that the market fete sway, which implics that it is only under tions of ction that forms of commodity exchange can be sonceived 1¢ market coming to the fore as the means by 1d more on isolated processes, arc linked together in the production and circulation of commodities. Alth« specific cases that Lenin goes on to argue through there is a clear coexistence of many enterprises in competition producing the ‘marker’ in this formulation functions only with respect to the pri unity to a commodity economy ‘enterprises; the idea that the ma hich processes are separated in distinct also functions as the space of confrontation prises created more extensive possi While Kautsky advances a similar argument in Chapter 2 of concerning the relation ofthe peasant to a commodity economy of free wage labour, much greater emphasi confrontation of small and large enter ible in some way to regard the works as compleme: regarded Die Agrarfrage as an exemplary exten: Capital Vol. TI (Lenin, IV : 94). This does not however particular simil of exposition of Developm300 The Journal of Peasant Studies Russia and Die Agrarfrage. On the onc hand Kautsky presents a general argument concerning the forms of combination of small and large enterprises distinguished according to acreages, produc ed, technical means employed and so oa, with occasional illustrative. materi European sources. Le often devoting great attention to th sentation of such data, such that ed on purely through the deployme: roads of development in ‘ich could be dsdnglthe a refoaaed revattonary paths efor, the landlord's economy, depending as it did on feudal relations, would slowly transform into a capitalist, Junker” economy, in which the large holdings of the landlords would continue to dominate the national economy. In the latter case, the landlord economy would be broken up through revolutionary struggle and replaced by the development o' i precisely this form of peasant agriculture that would promote the swift advance of capitalism, since it cleared the way for a rapid process of capitalist differentia- tion,* Support of peasant expropriations is in 2907 then conceived not as a defence of peasant cconomy, but rather as support for the conditions of capitalist id destruction of feudal relations. f his work [1899] there had been no programmatic forms of development in the coming ian Programme of Social-Democracy’ "he earlier ‘Draft and Explanation of a Programme for the Social Democrat Patty” (1895-96) docs not deal with the peasantry directly, since the manuscript breaks off before stage the working class are considered the pessantry are conceived at most as in a position to lend ‘The list of demands that appears removing the ‘burden’ of the lan st Social Democracy pr seizures of the peasantry the basis for a worker-peasant alliance, In the f Social Democracy equivocated on the basis of the protocols contained 301 programme and is peasantry acts in a revolutionary-democrat asantry, to ofganise separately {fo ‘on the other, is problematic. The diff invocation of a rural proletariat, but th 1905 is class was at best weak. The analysis of The Development hhad not been a conjunctural one in the sense of an attempt alance of class forces obtaining in a current situation, The ‘was the task of the draft programmes of the RSDLP to calcula of the forms of struggle, and identify specific policies that had to be agitated for. he possibilities ion of the Agrarian Programme of the Worker's “The Agrarian Programme of Social Democracy in the Fiest Russian Revolution 1905-1907" (Lenin, XI: 217-4 idea of the two roads of capitalist development are outlined in det seizure of landlord's the outcome of such work.302, The Journal of Peasant Studies Die Agrarfrage on the other hand docs contain a substantial section entitled ‘Social Democratic Agrarian Policy’, which begins by questioning the need for a specific agrarian programme in a Social Democratic Patty." In this way, Kautsky is able to pose the problem of the specific character of the class forces in the countryside, and contrast the situation of the poor peasant and the indus worker. For their conditions are quite distinct, and they cannot be ass simply on the grounds of ‘poverty’. For the urban worker, propertylessness refers to means of production, not of consumption, whereas the inverse is usually taken to be the case for the poor peasant [Kautsky, 18992 305- i gramme articulated around a defence of the peasantry conditions of peasant production rather than persons) would co ‘of property, the very thing which shackles the poor peasant [Kautzky, 1899 : 320]. In this way Part II devotes itself principally to sn investigation of the possibilit for ‘common interest’ to exist between the workers and the peasantry. It shown that there can be no simple transfer of policy applicable to the because of the forms of development of capitalist agriculture outlined in the preceding part. Kautsky eventually produces a list of reforms applicable to rural conditions [Kautsky, 1899 : 436-38], but these are held to be the basis not for an alliance, but of a hopeful ‘neutralisation’ (Kautshy, 1899; 43g], The text that Kautsiy produces differs therefore from Lenin’s comparable onc in that gocs some way towards formulating an agrarian programme; but the eleme Which he advances here can in no way be regarded as similac to the programma statements claborated by Lenin in the early 1900s. While the presence of s proposals in the second part of Die Agrarfrage distinguishes i from The Develop- im in Russia, and serves to emphasise the political tasks of such fective programme for a concern of Kautsky was to show production could be produced ‘writers such combating the 1 series of ‘Maraist analysis of agricul from the concepts of Capital, opposing claims Lenin on the other hand was 1 undifferentiated ‘people’, Lenin argued, the of the advancing forms of capitalist develop- ‘was registered as “increasing ling Populist theoretician, Russa (1882), argued that Russian capitalism: “Peasaniry’ as an Ee ‘market since its own development, by bringing to ruin peasan more and more the purchasing power of the population {IVali ist development in Russia could te control, invoking the idea that the disinterested Vorontsov, wa ‘independence legislation in favour of While the notion of the restriction of the *home market’ was derived from a mechanical usage of Marx's reproduction schema (and subject to criticism in of Capitalism in Russia), the opposition of ‘peo jst production resulted from the equation of capitalism For Vorontsov, capitalism in agriculture would be yge-scale farming, and any pred 3 to refute the idea of capitalist de dn stated in his major onslaught on the Populist are and how they Fight the Social Democrs ‘The friends of the people, however, will never be able to grasp the fact that despite its general wretchedness, its compara and extremely low productivity of labour, its primit number of wage-workers, peasant industry cannot grasp the point that capital is a certain relat relation which remains the same whether the cate are at higher or a lower level of development. (Lei large-scale communal production was the which destroyed this form, and in doing principal divergences between Lenin e hand and other was Lenin’s consistent refusal to deal with the ‘peasantry’ an economy in which the and the organisation of the ial organisation of the peasant 1 conception of ‘overwork’ or ‘over-exploitation’of family labour ns of family labour forms {FLF] can as a result of this be conceived a5 a natural consequence of a small enterprise run on such lines. This ‘over~ work’, the selfexploitation of labour beyond that which prevails in the « modity economy with wage labour, is shown by Kautsky to be not a ural characteristic but rather precisely the outcome of a need for money on the parut Studies ural of Pea 11899 : 106-07). This ‘need for money’, whether requires for continued existence, ‘ions concerning the products farmed and id draws in this fashion a small enterprise into a commodity economy yparently organised as a family labour farm. Indeed, as Lenin est family farms are often run at a farming loss in so far as cprise is augmented by revenue from family wage labour 7 33 ‘While the forms of combination of small and large enterprises are complex, it should not be assumed that this complexity is continuously being simplified as the large enterprises drive out the small. Although Kautsky stresses that the technical advantages enjoyed by the large enterprise can sometimes be great, ‘he demonstrates that Jarge capitalist farms increasingly depend on the existence of small enterprises for their conditions of production, The geographical ity markets also creates the conditions for small enterprises ic crops (eg. dairy farming and market gardening, both of tensive level without great investment and ore, as Lenin emphasises, the confrontation of small and in agriculture can only occur under specific conditions of dhe, like Kautsky, maintains that there is no neces sary tendency for the deliberation of small-scale by large-scale production. To maintain that such is the case confuses firstly that large capitalist enterprises can co-cxist and exchange with small peasant producers; and secondly, that small-scale production can itself be entirely capitalist, particularly in agri ‘where certain crops impose limitations to the scale of their production, ‘To pose ‘smal’ enterprises as peasant production surviving in the face of capitalist production, but nevertheless doomed to be wiped out eventually, would be totally erroncous, and this is argued at length by Lenin and Kautsky. ate be seen in 1 on the exi Kautsky, 1899: 175-90]. Again, in the conception of the femily-labour farm there is no way in which the capitalist nature of rur es, and the con- sequent involvement of peasant labour in forms of capitalist production, can be theorised. “Peasantry’ as an Ezononie Category 305 “The implication of the peasant enterprise ia manufacturing products w circulate in an extensive market as commodities requires concepts wl is can deal with these ‘marke ide’ of each enterprise and sepa exprise, wn above, the defence by the Narodniks of the ‘people’ revolved around, fication of peasant houscholds that Jand and possess the most minimal inst involvement of this group of the peasantry with wage labour and commodity Lenin showed that in general such households in this In terms of Iand held and instruments of production owned this latter group could be identified as an independent peasantry, in the sense that the enterprise neither rented labour in nor out nor was required to market its produce 10 secure its conditions of existence. He went on to show however that the independence of such hous on a sufficient crop return and a sta was of such an intensity that it was impos shortage, to divert labour to wage work in the commodity econ debt for any reason, such households could rarely extract thems! ition except by hiring out more labour, reducing lar crops for the market ymon concern of Le: Itis not tion of the farm of the rich peasant is examined nature’, nor that of the poor peasant for its function of dispossession and cre: of wage labour. A ‘peasant econom is not opposed by Lenin not conceived simply of commodities, but also with respect farms:306 The Journal of Peasane Studies ‘Anabsolutely propertyless agricultural labourer isa rarity, because in agricul ict sense, is connected with household al wage-workers own or have the landowners ty to strengthen or revive it by the sale or lease of land (Lenin, IV: 136). ‘The assessment of the level of development of capitalis is therefore traced by both Lenin and Kautsky not from the simple characteristic of individual enter prises, but from the ensemble of relations which dictate their conditions of existence and reproduction as individual enterprises. The difficulty inherent in the ‘independent peasantry’ of the Narodniks is precisely that the indepen- dence of such a form is in no way underwritten by existing relations of production and circulation, and is in fact ally undermined by these (Lenin, IL: 181), The advance of ca identified by Lenin in the heart of a peasant economy was deduced from the relations governing the articulation of y can be deduced from a simple rises (Lenin, XVI: 428, 437). As he of American agriculture, the simple and their conditions of reproduction. Against those who argued that the apparent predominance of family farms in the United States heralded the demise of capitalist production, Lenin maintained that: America provides the most graphic confirmation of the truth emphasised alist system of pro ibour processes by culatio possession and other exchange, and, throu; production, B, Cana Concept of a ‘Peasant Mode of Production’ be Constructed? ‘The notion of ‘peasantry’ is normally defined either culturally (for example, a specific form of village community (Redfield), or in terms of a particular form of unit of agriculvural production, that unit being characterised by Chayanov Culturalist conceptions of ‘peasant soci ‘of a ‘peasant? mode of producti ions are for them merely a facet of a given cultural unity. Ethnographic iption and the subsequent formation of generalisations about ‘peasant society’ are the forms of investigation and analysis generated by this conception, “Peasantry’ as an Economic Category 307 levance of this question to culturalism we constitute ‘peasantry’ as an object in te ‘of departure for the construction of a concept of ‘wo questions are central to the notion ofa concept of ‘peasant mode of producto @ the first is concerned with the unity of this object ‘peasantey': with the {question of whether the ‘peasant’ enterprise fs a unitary economic forms second, if i is so conceivable, whether this type of enterprise is connected th a single set of social relations of production such that it might be argued to be part of a specific mode of production? Before proceeding let us note that the question of the existence of a concept of ‘peasant mode of production’ is in no way affected by the existence of national economies which are bused primarily on the work and products of ‘family-labour farms’. Such farms may be enmeshed in feudal or other production relations, “The notion of ‘unit of production’ or ‘enterprise’ designates (in so far as we are ‘concerned with the theory of modes of production) a form of organisation of the Iabour process which is systematically combined with definite relations of pro- duction, and is, in this form, specific to that combination. An example of this ‘made of analysis is the specification of the units of production characteristic of the Slave mode in Pre-capitalist Modes of Production. Tt follows from this position that enterprises must be characterised in terms of the soc ot the structure of economic rematic connection between a labour process at of the product. i$ ask for purposes of exposition rot itis possible to reconstruct the relations of a mode of production from the form of the ‘peasant’ entecprise. This is necessary because the sole mode of existence of the object in question (‘peasantry’) in so far as it con esidue’ of formally his means of abour—therefore, supposed in the PMP peasantry (free in the sense of possessing their me 00d). ic specifically ‘peasant? relations between agents and mechanisms of bution of the means of production and the product constitute the social ions of production. n of peasantry’: us? With the most basic category involved in the no the ‘family-lnbour farm’, What does this category of Chayanov’s, ( that production is carried out mainly by the labour of the ‘family’; co-308. ‘operation with tw this; (fi) that the lan labour under the prev of its reproduction) other social relations. relations of formation of family units, relations 10 form peasant houscholds and which therefore jon of labour (patriarchal forms are presupposed. hip’ relations and therefor of the nature of the ‘economy formation and reformation of the specifically economic ones is to beg, in this case. Marriage here makes po communal regulation of rights of tenure and there is no shortage of land. This regulation establishes the specificity of familial production; these rights state the conditions under which sons form enterprises separate from their fathers and why familial rather than ses are formed at all. Thus the notion of the ‘family-labour farm’ a cexprise of a mode of production raises as problems the form the nature of the communal relations which sus production, The ‘fmily’ is not 2 natural institu for ¢ commune bas no simple exstenc only as part of more definite social rela 9 reformulate, we may say that the ‘possessio means and con- ditions of production can never be gi enterprise or unit of production ways depends upon the social relavons of production, Enterprises are specication of forms of fanilal relations and land tenure W differenti n of FLE, In order to illustrate this latter point we will consider those concepts of modes of production which entail (whether as dominant or subordinate forms) agricul~ tural production in units worked and managed by non-wage, noa-servile labour, MoDes OF PRODUGTION 1, Simple Conmedity Produi part of the process of conceptual de regarded by him as an abstract precedi . It is commodity production ‘mode supposes private property, production are secured through the economic forms of private pro (ent and sharecropping being means of possession if the land i he cultivator) and the production of commodities and their sale is “Hence the units of production are formed and maintained through nf conditions, conditions which dc communal sanc- se relations produce, as a necessary consequence, the difere: units of producti Indebtedness, landlessness wage labour result in the subordi the existence of class relations, although not capitalist class relations (the of producers are not separated from possession of the means of productio: ctermine the formation of ‘familial’ units of productio ns which determine whether s of consumption )ssession of the means of production. relations of production impose con- of fill unlts of production and consumption exist and area of the structure and operation of the economy. Co-operative forms of produc- tion, co-operation in the sexual division of labour (work groups based on sex310 The Journal ‘and task), redistribution of the product, all mean that the domestic unit is not dominant, that there is no single family-labour product or income. (For an attempt to argue the opposit ference to the notion of a ‘domestic mode fof production’ see M. Sahlins, Stone Age Economics, and the criticisms of it ia Paul Hirst’s review in Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1975.) "The notion of a ‘peasant mode of production’ based on ‘fumily-labour farms! supposes non-exploitative communal and familial relations as its conditions of ‘existence, Neither simple commodity production nor primitive communism (in ‘which class exploitation is secondary or is undeveloped), however, respect these conditions, ‘The one subordinates ‘peasant? production to the laws of commodity production, The other enmeshes the unit of production in a system of co- operative productive forms. There is no concept of “Peasant Mode of Production’. ‘There are only specific forms of agricultural production, worked and managed toa greater or lesser degree by household units. The conditions of existence of such household units and their relations to other forms of production are speci to the mode of production in which they exist. They are differentiated by the social relations which form thom and reproduce them. Hence, if forms of agricultural production based on the household are to be analysed and compared ‘Marxist discourse it must be in the first instance in terms of the social relations of production in which they operate, Typologies based upon technique, agronomic and cultural conditions are at best misleading, The category ‘peasantry’, as a general category of economy, can only be used in discourses Which do not attempt to make rigorous use ofthe concepts of mode of production or of social relations of production, Itis to the use of such non-Marxist categories that we now t C. The Peasant’ Category, A Human Type in a Modern Market Jn the received wisdom of anthropology, ‘peasant’ appears as an unproble- matic descriptive category which only poses difficulties of definition and differentiation because of the varied forms of ete appearance, Thus statements about the difficulty of defining ‘ santry’ of ‘peasant economics’ profiferate as the range of suggi correspondingly increases, Meanwhile, no one doubts the existence of . Yet anthro- pologists do not seem to have this conceptual problem when describing wibal i distinctive variants of concrete f ne of the foremost economic anthropologists, lem to the general difficulties experienced by anthropologists. Anthropology, he states, isan unusually dificult subject because of the vast range of societies it studies, and ‘peasantries contains all the diversity and complexity, characteristic of anthropological enquiry in general” [Dalion, 1972: 385). As will be seen later, Dalton uses this complexity as an excuse both for espousing the substantivist doctrine, and for taking it to the logical con~ clusion of denying the validity of any generalisation whatsoever. Generalisations, hie claims, are not useful because they do not Jead to the ability to make ‘true statements’ about any one empirical occurrence. Yet he is reduced to suggesting | | | | Category 3 that there are three typical forms of peasantry, and also makes the very gene statement that ‘Peasants of all times and places are structured inferio p. 406). Sucely there must be some reason other than the many varieties of peasantry which causes the definitional problems in peasant studics, It should become clear in the course of this section of the paper that there have been two con twibuting factors in the development of the conf nd that they are Uheoretical rather than practical problems. The first is related to the comment ‘Wolf makes on Dalton, that he uses a model drawn from. not just the validity of a such descriptive categor ‘The second rea peasant studies a from observed ext hara ‘ypologies have been formulated in terms of level of technology, cultural features, the existence of specific forms of exchange, agricultural practices and so on, all of which develop descriptive categories which are analytically useless, and merely reproduce the given category ‘peasant, ‘THE HUMAN TYPE, provides an carly example of this principle at work. He places great mnships which could gi this observed structure is reproduced over time, The tt Redfield’s work, as common in peasant studies, is represen framework, This ultimately posi answering the first question with the solution to the second. ‘Thus the con~ sideration of the concept of peasant is never seriously attempted, ‘This is acknow- ledged by Redfield when he claims that there can be no clear definition drawn from ‘the facts’. Indeed, he asserts that: ‘Peasant society and culture has some- thing generic about it, Tt is a kind of arrangement of humanity with some similarities all over the world (ibid. p. 25). Thus we have the peasant proposed as a sort of universal human type [se also pp. 106 and rrr], a man with a ‘way of's notion of the peasant is the relationship between the peasant and the wider society of which his culture is only a semi-autonomous part, and this relationship is crucial to most formulations of the peasantry, often appearing as the defining feature. Redfield describes this village and national life largely in cultural ter aspect or dimension of the civilisation of which of the cultural traditions of the part-socicty and the whole society but the peasant semi-autonomy appears to be based on a way of life which keeps aloof from commer sant productive activity, Redfield suggest is governed not by the ‘profit motive’ but by a separate set of values, Thi defining peasants by their economic he completes his culturalist as content merely to state that there is an exploitative relationship between the rural peasant and an urban elite which cexpropriates surplus production, The form this relationship takes is nota nor is the peasant ‘surplus’ treated as anything but an excess over 1 production, ‘Thus the peasant part-society is society only in terms of the share as external to urban life, and no importance production in the maintenance of national economics. Despite its limitations the definition of peasant communities as external seg ments of national cultures has been widely followed. Most authori Redield seem to be working with Krocber’s defi Peasants are definitely rural—yer live in relation to market tow: form a class segment of a larger pop cceatres, sometimes metropolitan capi with part cultures [Krocber, 1948 : 284) However, this causes problems out it fils to differentiate clearl Tribal cultivators and modem, ‘peasant. ‘This has led to dispute and cou instance, attempted to draw a defi who could be cled ‘i that the urban/rural cultural gap in Afr (Pallers, 197s: 176}, ‘The limitations of Krocber’s definition gua definition appear most strongly in the Limited Good hypothesis. Foster claims that peasant communitics are the rural expression of large complex civilisations, and attributes their integrating principle to an implicit orientation towards the rural-urban relationship, The MARKET VALUES Even the authors ofthese deseri are unable to ign it were market-place 0 the peasant enterprise, over which peasant has no contro snetrates only peripher tion process. By treating the market as concerned in practi peasant excess or surplus production, and commerce as bei terms separate from peasant values, these writers make the ma I construct, It seems to be superfluous to the amode of interaction between peas is more specifically concerned wit jonship between peas ¢ very definition of peasant should be |. At times he seems to see the ‘While denying that there is a divisi (economic) values, he nevertheless claims that category of persons engaged in the same employment [ibid p. 1 eis impor th’s concept of ‘market’ is that ofa pr entity governed by supply and demand, and to remember that his over-all34 The Jounal of Peasant ies je perspective is dominated by ideas of scarcity, needs and choices [in ider, 9. hhe describes the peasant as limited in the 1. limiting the range of choices available through the influence of social moral values 2 siding the individual in making choices; 3. predicting ving elues to the 5. legitimating choices. and the peasant seems to be defined almost as a set of behaviour-determining values, There is thus no means by which the social relations of production specific to peasantries could be derived from Firth’s account, despite its apparent In addition, by using the concepts and terminology of neo-classical economies, Firth shows that the market he visualises asthe locus of the peasant/non-peasant relationship is simply a scaled-down capitalistic market, Describing the economy of Malay peasant fishermen, he says that correct to apply the term ‘pre-capitalistic to such an economy, except in a special sen that is only in regard to the almost complete absence ofa class of ‘capitalists’. As far as function is concerned, the system uses capital in ways that are frequently stricy parallel to those in a modem business economy (Firth, 1946: 127]. Ttsoon becomes clear, however, that by ‘capital’ Firth implies ‘a stock of money ‘used to finance productio ‘. 128], and that when he describes the market hae is concerned with the cash and credit organisation of the market-place and the actions of middle men [ibid., Ch. VII). ‘Thus if an attempt were made to construct a typology of peasants concentrating on the peasant/non-peasant relationship on the lines suggested by Firth in 1964 [Fi values would dominate the range of choices made. groups are defined by Firth through their value Jocal market, a position which is only fra Redfield’. us peasant socio-economi tation towards an exter more satisfactory Ul EXPLOITED HUMAN TYPES A mote specifically economic attempt to define peasants by focusing upon the tic Category 315 t of peasant and non-peasant society fxs been made by sgies on the framework of the asymmetry of this relation 1gs Wolf already displayed a concern with the varity of mn a generic Peasant Type.1° Instead of stressing 1 ‘of small-scale price-making markets on pessaat choi from the wider perspective of the ‘industrial revol of world markets. This has led, he sugges ye-scale farming enterprises and the peasantries resources and opportunities, resulting in the peasants tal fin omic system [Wolf 19: Although Wo reinvestment, and that his choices (even so far as cash-crop produc cerned) are culturally determined, he insists that ‘the tezm * structured relationship, not a particular culture content” ‘examines the possibility of constructing a typology of p. structured relationship between the peasant society and ‘hole, The relationship istics oF peasant and non-peasant values, but oa a specific economic ulation, “he first typology Wolf suggested was constructed upon the peasant’s dis- postion of his ‘surplus’ product. Type (1) peasants ate those who practise th only a small amount produced for ca e markets. Such a peasantry would be characterised by hat as the unit of production and consumption, by the boundedness ‘communal structure, and by a cult of poverty and institutionalised envy reminis- cent of the Limited Good. Type (2) peasants on the other hand rezul f 0-71 per cent of their production as a cash crop req) Phis is received only on an intermittent basis, and does ices oF influence the apparatus of pr outside markets an “Type (4) dist ‘Wolf modifies this view to an evoluti 1g upon ‘surplus’ as something the peas: ‘views it as something which is extracted from ruling cla or exploitative relationship between the productive peasant anda group which assumes executive and administrative functions wi product, backed by the use of force [I7olf, 2966: 3]. Tis typ not hypothesised on an impersonal price-making market, but on316 The Journal of Peasant Studies dominated by social relationships of production and distribution, Unfortunately, however, the social relationships Wolf derives are descriptive rather analytical categories. The evolutionary approach whic underdeveloped societies midway between the wwibe and the ase in the evolution of human society’ preface). Like Redfield, he seems to be concerned with the history as anything other ‘can be arranged accordi He teats the power retatio vital distinguishing factor. of ecotypes or and passim}.) TI behaviour largely cxternal to what (bia, ‘THE MODERN MARKET SYSTEM patterns or forms he latter being typical system of price-making Category 317 ‘ody suggests that Polanyi was anxious to show th iarket economy, both for the development of W ment of economic theory (Dalton, 1968: xti-xiv]. his own (1974: 36 he separation of market exchange from social bonds cepts produced by formal economic primitive economies. Without tly and primitive so would presumably thus This is described as an economy oF system in whi hip of the means of production and the presence of mack: Type 1 Marketless: a s reciprocity and redist 5. Also 19718} t concepts derived from conv economies are relevant to the study of the commercial sectors of peasant economic organi- sation, i re dependence on purchased land and wage-labour and the ‘market sale of produce is quantitatively important’ [Dalion, 19718: 74. See also318 The Jou of Peas 1965: 123), But at the same time Dalton claims that a special set of concepts {s needed to analyse peasant economies, which differ from tribal economies by being underdeveloped economies, lacking ‘facilitative institutions and social capi So far Dalton has done little to elucidate notion of peasant economy except idway between tribe and nation state, which is reminiscent of Wolf. ‘The difference between Wolf and Dalton lies in the varying importance given to the notion of ‘surplus’, Wolf, 2s seen above, uses ‘surplus’ asa central unifying notion, denoting excess production, Dalton implies that it is increased production (Dalton, ro71a: 202, 2043 1974: 404, 414). However, the mechanisms by which ‘a market system dominates underdeveloped peasant economies and the means ‘by which production is achieved are never formulated, for Dalton is more interested in defining and describing peasants in all their observed var 1972 article, Dalton sets about solving the three problems he sees In essence these are all n the observed charac analyse them, Concepts do not in any case unless they can be validated with respect to specifi notion of peasantry in general because of the detail lost in all generalisations. He suggests that the differences between peasants are more important than the similarities, and thus produces another typology, although he calls it a classi= fication, Dalton approaches his classifica of peasants, but by cot the jt from an analysis of the social relations ‘We can see how peas stage of moderns lages changed (and) dete nonpeasants at cach we which few of a larger set of fact change and what does not change over time [Dal Besides basing this assertion on the very generalisn refute, Dalton here reveals himself to be concerned non-peasant relationship. Howeve this relationship over time he is not tied to any one fixed concept of peasant, or even to any one Western peasant stage as typical. On the contrary, he is able to espouse an extreme relat n which the social relations and transactions between given (but different) peasantries and market systems (price-making mechanisms however they appear) are in a constant state of flux, the form of which is determined only by the inexorable process of modernisation, At no point does hie attempt to analyse these relations and transactions; because they are all unique or specific they can only be described and classified, Dalton thus not only fails to distinguish peasant economy or develop any concepts for its Category 319 .0 does not develop any concepts which might be useful for the esting analysis of peasant/non-peasant transactions, In sum, the problems inherent in all these types of anthropotogical analyses rest upon a treatment of ‘peasant’ societies as if they were a possible general object of enquiry, and their definition qua societies were unproblematic. There is also a tendency to use particular peasant communities which have been studied by anthropologists as objects in both practical and theoretical frameworks, Moreover, concepts are conceived as derived fom concret applied to other concrete situat i ‘concepts which could be used for social enquiry, be it peasant or non-peasant largely ignored. constructed because it is impossible to specify distinctly ‘peasa: production,"4 It has considered the difficulties involved in non-Mat ceptions of ‘peasantry’ as a gencral type in economic anthropology. We must repeat our challenge to this category is not an attempt to legislate away important problems of political relevance, rather itis to argue that they cannot be thought by means of this category. If there is a unity to these diverse forms of non~ capitalist production it is to be found in their relationship to capita the forms and effects of the process of capitalist penetration and not in any type of ‘peasant’ economy. NOTES sof such discussions is Harrison [1976]320 The Journal of Peasant Studies 6 Kautshy (po) states that fe ing the impossibility of procecting small ‘Engels drew some general conclusions conce ses that this hid to be made clear ‘peasants from capitalist development, and en es, 1968 Sad apical (published in ‘of a Russian process for example, took Marx's since the development of necessarily opposed progres himself has lent support to the Popt ‘ception of a direct transition to socialism ‘on the basis of the peasant commune in his ler to Vera Zasulich, who wrote to his 1881 on bebialf of comrades who were later to join the Emancipation of Labour sr0up. Zasulich asked for Mares opinion of the possibilities for the historical develop ‘ment of Russia in particular with respect co village communes. In his draft replies ‘the letter (which are much longer than the eventual summary) Mare argued that munes were disregarded, then 1 ive production and appropriation Mars, Ed. 19: 391). It must be emphasised that this conclusion has more to do with ‘2a be found in The German Ideoleey ‘concepts for the analysis of eapatalise production advanced in Capital, ‘vas to use with such effect to ertiise Populist views, idea that the home market formed an immutable barrier to Ruan capi lieation of Marw’s reproduction ny of capitalist production that this 2128-36), nodera, and ruraljurba apply equally to a category of ‘peasant relations of produ REFERENCES Bleaneyy M., 1976, Under jeores, London: Laveeence and Wishart, hayandy, A. Vo 1966, The Theory of Peasant Economy, Homewood TM: R. D. Irvin, Dalton, G., 1965, Review of Capital Savings and Credit’ in American Anthropologist, vol. 67, no. 1. ‘Peasantry! as an Beon tc Category 1968, Primitive, Archaic and Mode Dalton, G., 19718, Economie Development and Social Ch Dalten, G., 19710, Economie Anthropology and Developm i, New York: Basic Books. ‘Peasantzies in Anthropology and History" Enays on Tribal ond Peouant Lloyd, 197 Usrial 1946) A 2 London: Kegan Paul Foster, 1965, ‘Peasant Society ‘Polos, Wl. 67, 90.2 “The Peasant Mode of Production in the work of A.V. earch Papers, No. 86 nd Hist, Paul, 1965, Pret Routledge & Kegan Paul Mindess, Barry and Hirst, Poul, 1977, Modes of Prod mand Socal For Hirst, P Kautsky, Kat, 1899, Die dgrarfrage, Stutgact, Dietz, Kroeber, A: L', 1948, Anthropology, New York. LeClair and Schneider Lenin, V. Ty 1960 (y 11-73) ostnikov's w of Stone Age Economics’, Journal of Peas » 1960 (I, 129-332), Democrats’ Mose 1960 (If, 93-121), ‘Draft and Explanation of a Programme for the Socal Party’, Moscow. Lenin, V. 1, 1960 (11, 2559458), “The Handicraft Census of 1894-98 in Perm Gubernia (General Problems of “Handicrafe Industry”, Moscow, 1 VT, 1954 (UI). The Devel Moscow. Lenin, V. Te 1960 CV, 94-9), "Karl Kat Moreow Lenin, V. 2, 1960 IV, 105-159), ‘Capi ure (Kautsky's Book and Mr Bulpakoy’s Article)’, Moscow. Len, T, 105-48), “The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy’, |, 361-430), “To the Rural Poor—An Explanation for noceats Wan’, Moscow. of the Agrarian Programme of the Worker: 17-431), “The Agrarian Programme of Social D ion, 1905-1907", Moscow. 1, 1963 (XVL, 423-446), “The Capitalist Syst 1 Vs iu 1964 (CX, 13-102), ‘New Data on ‘of Capita in Agriculture’, Moscow. Levy, H., 1911, reprinted 1966, Large and Small Holdings, Londot Linelejohn, G., 1977, ‘Chayanov and the ‘Theory of Peasant Econ ‘Sociological of the Econom, London: Macrilan. ‘Marx, K., 1962 (Ed. 19), Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag. Frank Cass in B. Hindess, ed,The Peasant Mode of Production in the Work of A. V. Chayanov Mark Harrison* Secondly, production’ is a Marxian concept, can quotations from Chayano\ squeezed into a Marxian problematic? Alternatively, how strongly condemn Chayanov for not being 2 Marxist? I hope to have avoided bot! questions. ‘The intention of this paper is to define the problem central to the idea of the ‘mode of production, to isolate those aspects which will then emerge 2s ‘Chayanov's theory of peasant economy, and to see where the resulting ns lead us, our, we know, generally speaking ‘The central question, rather, concerns the defini condi es survive and disappear in the modern world, xis theory the mode of production can be defined firstly ‘procest—forees of production, the relationship between the worker and. the